USSR opening move

Thanks, I had missed that.

I think at the least most recent 20 threads should be mandatory reading before being able to post here…

@madscientist:

Thank you for your thorough response.

No problem!

Would not have been worth posting unless it showed all the available info, including the initial negatives of the strategy.

@googie7745:

Well what would you suppose I do with my Indian infantry and fighter? Should I attack Burma with it? Infantry and fighters both defend better. And why not strafe WE? Two fighters against two infantry will win with one fighter gone, and the US can land two infantry and fighter to defend and your bomber goes to the UK. Your Rhodesian infantrywould also attack alongside your Syria-Iraq infantry. And Germany wouldn’t be able to build in Karelia in G2, because Russia would counterattack with four inf, four tanks, and a fighter. And if you would win every time as Axis, the how come I play as Allies and always win?

Several options:

1)  Kwangbang - take Man on R1 and attack Kwang on UK 1 with 2 inf, 1 ftr
2)  Send EGy forces and Ind forces to Per for and army of 4 inf, 1 arm (land ftr wherever)
3)  Counter Egy if germany took on rd 1 you can counter with 3 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bom
4)  Reinforce Ken/Rho with the 2 inf.
5)  Reinforce Sin with the 2 inf

Do not underestemat a tactical retreat in Asia (for the Allies).  This is often how you will need to play to win once you start introducing bids.

Don’t consider attacking WE rd 3 or later.

Round 1 (allies) - buy set up units (ie AC for UK, and trns for UK/US)
Round 2 - land in afr (buy more trans)
Round 3 - go to Fin
Round 4 - take WE (or continue to ship to Fin then move to Kar)
Round 5 - repeat rd 4, etc.

I prefer just threatening (bluffing at) WE and continuing to send troops to Fin and Kar so you can do a 1-2-3 punch on EE (or reinforce Mos if necessary)

I have to concur with the others who have posted.  A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go.  If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia.  While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units.  Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia).  Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too).  That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia.  So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it.  If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about.  YAKUT is the key for Japan.  Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces.  The drain on Russia:  defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support.  And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)

I don’t think russia should build 1-2 armor a turn. If they do, that’s 10 ipc’s if russia is earning 21 a turn, they can only build 2 armor and 3 infantry, it’s much better to build all iinfantry. Tanks are offencive but very expensive. If the allies can hold their ground, they will win since they have a better production. Using this logic, russia should go all defence. This is true since for a conventional win, axis has to kill russia. There are numerous explinations of why russia should not build many tanks. If you can hold eastern, and you still have your 4 tanks, and you want to take germany, AND japan doesn’t control the 3 territories around russia, then you can build tanks. Otherwise, 1-2 once might be ok (it might not be either) but 1-2 every turn is a waste of money. germany can just kill your expensive infantry. You can read don’s essay on purchacing. It does the math.

…OK maybe I should’ve said “…1-2 ARM per turn when possible…” if USSR is only making 21 IPCs a turn, then yeah, 1-2 ARM is gonna be a big burden. But with F/N under your belt & trading Ukraine each turn, 1-2 ARM each turn or so (allowing for occasional turns when all INF is necessary) is still a good idea. Without ARM you will have to rely entirely on your 2 FTRs for offensive firepower & will have to load up on a lot more INF to sustain attacks. Using only your original 4 ARM, you will have to preserve them and your ability to trade territory w/ Germany will be limited. I think its a good idea to buy a few ARM units along with your steady diet of INF…

Ozone27

but I still think you should go after india first