So here is what I am wondering: Say Germany were to just try to survive in Europe while its main army went straight for Calcutta. The question is if Japan were to ignore the mainland and go all navy, can they capture Hawaii or Sydney around the same time, or hold one long enough to seal the deal? Would it be an uphill battle for Japan? Can the allies stop this sinister plot for an axis pacific win?
I think Japan has to grab the money (DEI) and cannot ignore Asia. China eliminated, helps Germany more, I believe. Japan can make more money and keep it better than Germany early on.
Your plan would probably surprise the Allies, so try it. Taking Sydney is very hard. Hawaii easier, but still needs to be held. I would get rich quick, then go for those VPs.
I dunno, I’ve hit Hawaii before and used it as a launch against Australia. With the US out of Hawaii there are no ships to help ANZAC and if you go early enough, there’s no real land defense in ANZAC either. From there it was a matter of losing Hawaii but keeping pressure up and collecting the DEI for the Japanese. I don’t think I actually got a VC win for the Japanese in any of the I did this successfully, but I did win because my opponent gave up.
If you ignore Asia, China + India will excorcise you from the mainland. Remember you have 2 VC’s over there. Or just one if you don’t even bother to take Hong Kong ;-).
Did not mean to imply I was ignoring China/India at all. Just no reason to go full throttle after them if you have a long game planned for Japan in the Pacific. Without any help from USA/ANZAC the powers of China/India are not that strong. You can’t just let them go unhindered cause they’ll just mass up a super stack of infantry, but you can keep trading the Burma road for quite a while if you divert 8-12 IPC a round (income depending) on pushing the US into the Atlantic. It just doesn’t lead to a round 5-7 sack of Calcutta if you do.
Not a huge fan of always going hardcore for Moscow and Calcutta - it’s so BORING to do the same thing in every game. lol
Japan would at least have to hold the line in asia, to keep the VC. But I guess it would take Germany 9 or 10 turns to take Calcutta right? So that gives Japan some time to gather up Manilla and the money islands, maybe put a little pressure on India or China. So if they were to concentrate most to all on the ocean war each turn will they have a good chance of taking Hawaii or Sydney around the same time? Or maybe striking earlier and then hold it long enough? Waiting too long could be dangerous, eventually the allies will realize the plan and try to block it.
Okay, wouldn’t it be fairly hard for Germany to get down to India? We are talking strictly land route, right? So they have to go through Bessarabia, Ukraine, Rostov, Caucasus, NW Persia, Persia, E Persia, W India then India. That’s 8 battles just to get to their final battle. Ukraine will be a tough battle as I imagine Russia would try to hold that factory there. Also, you are bypassing right by Stalingrad allowing a Russian factory where they can hit your flank, although the Ukraine factory might help to balance that. I guess Persia would be easy enough to overcome.
Are we talking all types of ground units (infantry and artillery included)? Or is this force to be a stack of tanks and mechs?
It seems to me like Italy might have a better chance at getting Calcutta. Of course, that depends on how well Italy does against Allied ships in the Med and how many transports they are able to keep hold of. Another possibility for Italy is if they can take Egypt and Trans-Jordan. Then, if they have decent navy, they can sail right over and invade India.
By the way, this might be a stupid question, but the 8 VC win in Europe and 6 VC win in Pacific doesn’t have to be the Axis power on that side? In other words, if Japan captures 5 VCs and Germany or Italy captures Calcutta, then the Axis win with 6 VCs in the Pacific?
Alternately, if Japan manages to capture Stalingrad (which has happened before in a couple of our games) and Germany/Italy get 7 other VCs on the Europe board, then the Axis will win with an 8 VC win on the Europe board?
So a VC win on the Europe board doesn’t mean that the Euro Axis has to control all 8 VCs, and a VC win in the Pacific doesn’t mean that Japan has to control all 6 VCs, right?
That is right Knp. It is the map that counts, not the power(s) who owns it. All 3 powers can be on one side (Euro or Pacific) and can get that victory amongst them.
@Cmdr:
Did not mean to imply I was ignoring China/India at all. Just no reason to go full throttle after them if you have a long game planned for Japan in the Pacific. Without any help from USA/ANZAC the powers of China/India are not that strong. You can’t just let them go unhindered cause they’ll just mass up a super stack of infantry, but you can keep trading the Burma road for quite a while if you divert 8-12 IPC a round (income depending) on pushing the US into the Atlantic. It just doesn’t lead to a round 5-7 sack of Calcutta if you do.Â
Not a huge fan of always going hardcore for Moscow and Calcutta - it’s so BORING to do the same thing in every game. lol
I was adressing the OP, sorry for the confusion :-).
About the OP’s strategy in general:
I did it once so it can definately work. But I think it is more of an opportunity to grab if you see it is there.
The only way I can see this working is if you can plan ahead and grab Hawaii/Sydney the same turn as Germany takes India.
The problem with Hawaii/Sydney is, if you take it, your remaining (and possibly crippled) IJN must stay there and must constantly (and heavily) be reinforced. This opens up the doors at the far end from where you are boldly staying (where no1 has ever… ;-)). IOW: if you are camping at Hawaii, you will most likely loose the DEI and SEAsia so go there as late as you possibly can to prevent camping.
In the game I did it, I was only able to do so because the USA was spending too much on Europe and so I grabbed Hawaii late in the game. In order to not loose any of the other Japanese VC I had to contain India+ ANZAC as well. Since Germany was loosing in Europe anyway, I decided to march it’s army to India. The initial German approach was full focus into Russia, without any naval builds and the battle for Calcutta would still have been tricky. The massive US fleet in the med could still have liberated India, but I was able to surprise them. By the time the US realized what I was doing, it was too late. India would be liberated 1 turn too late…
If the USA had spent more in the PAC and less in Europe, this plan would not have worked because A) Japan would not have been able to take Hawaii/Sydney and B) Germany taking India would have weakened the Euro-axis beyond repair (Russia becomes a superpower at the cost of a LOT of German income).
The UK focussing a lot on the med, not building up for a second front in the west also helped a lot.
So once again, it is a plan I would keep in the back of my head and do it when opportunity arrives, but not put all my money on this one horse from the start of the game before even knowing what the allies are up to.
If Germany is marching to Calcutta I think it would make more sense to pull off a neutral crush and go through Turkey. Get quicker access to Middle Eastern NOs and Gibraltar as well.
That’s exactly how I have done it before. Drive 20 mech/tanks through Turkey. Its best if you do this with USA out of the war though.
You could use Japan to crush Persia/Egypt while Germany is 100% attacking Russia. Japan can fake an attack on Calcutta and send a CV, planes, 3TT(1 tank, 2 art, 3inf), BB and DD. They can use the rest of the navy to keep exchanging the DEI and keep India contained and convoyed.
Actually Veers that is what I was thinking of doing :-) Hit spain, sweden and turkey on round 3, maybe have Italy hit spain on turn 2 so germany can blitz through to gibralter. Go through Turkey to Calcutta and get some middle eastern oil at the same time. Keep Russia and Usa out of the war as long as possible.
I figure Germany can reach its objective while (perhaps barely) surviving in europe. It is mostly Japan I am wondering about. Can they be depended upon to take Hawaii or Sydney at the same time, or hold one long enough, especially if the allies see it coming?
Judging by LeClercs experience, I guess probably not :(
Uhm, well, not sure why we have to have a LAND route to India when it’s so easy to do a naval route halfway there and side step a lot of resistance. I mean, if Germany’s going for India and just needs to retrain England/Russia instead of taking them out.
Germany takes Greece or take your pick there by the Adriatic, they can now build transports under the protection of the Italians easily enough. Heck, with an airbase there they could even scramble up to 6 fighters from S. Italy and the territory they have the minor complex on and build ground units there if they really had too. Lots of flexibility. With two nations dumping into N. Africa they should plow through Egypt pretty fast and into the middle east.
If the goal is European axis powers in India that is.
That sounds like a good plan too :-D
Looked at the map and it seems that if Germany goes through Turkey then it can be attacking Calcutta at like turn 8.
So what should Japan do? Direct it’s efforts against the Usa for Hawaii, or against Anzac to try and get Sydney? Which is more likely to succeed.
Hitting Turkey turns all true neutrals pro-Allies. Not sure if it is worth it when the allies are already making SO MUCH MORE per round than the Axis. Not saying it is not worth it, just wondering if it wouldn’t be better to go around via transport instead, since it also secures the med and n. Africa.
