First few builds for USA

@Ichabod:

Lately it seems some Axis players have been purchasing a German Navy on round 1 and then they declare war on Russia later like round 3 or 4 because Germany builds navy. Germany then “threatens” London, but the real objective is Cairo and the middle east.

As a counter to that growing threat, would it not makes sense for the UK to hit Iraq round 1 instead of other options being:

1. Activate Persia
2. Kill Ethiopia
3. Taranto and Ethiopia
4. Acivate Perisa and Hit Iraq (risky). You have to use the mech at Egypt and pick up the tank and an infantry from the med. Likely to not capture without taking a plane hit.

Obviously doing Ethiopia and Taranto assumes risk. Maybe the same as Iraq and Taranto?

Anyways, what are the thoughts on Iraq UK1?

Iraq UK1 is an unnecessary risk. If you activate Persia UK1, you can attack Iraq UK2 with free troops and thus Egypt is better defended on UK1. You don’t lose your valuable airplanes rushing the attack. Turn order gives you the edge over Italy’s Syria landing.

Marsh

@simon33:

Why don’t you just build a third fighter in Calcutta to defend against sbr? It is well spent.

Because I am worrying about a quick J3 Indian Crunch.  I am preparing for the following Japanese movement:
J1 move 1(2) inf from Kiangsi to Borneo, move 3 inf, 1 art from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to Philippines; J1 build 3 transports
J2 move 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to sz36; J2 build naval base in FIC; concentrate all carrier groups in sz36 (each with 1 tact, 1 fighter), bombers in Siam, block sz38 with some fleet
J3 attack India with 6-8 inf, 3 art, 1 tank, 3 tact, 3 fighters, 2 bombers (can have offshore bombardments)

According to the build & movement below (no Russian fighter to India), I will have
16 inf, 1 art, 3 AA, 1 fighter in India for defense.
This should just be enough to defend India.  If I build a UK fighter in India, then I don’t have enough infantry to defend India.

Middle East-Indian Wall strategy
[[to counter J1 attack, no matter Germany goes for sealion or barbarossa]]
Turn 1
C1: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 4 inf in Szechwan

UK1:
India 1 tack+fighter to Middle East (Middle Earth strategy)
Sz39 transport 1 inf to Persia
India 5 inf, 1 art=> Burma
Burma fighter=> India
Malaya 3 inf => Shan state
India build 5 inf

ANZAC1: Malaya inf => Shan state

Turn 2
C2: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 5 inf in Szechwan

UK2: (consider the case J1 take Borneo, build 3 transports; J2 build MIC and NB in FIC; move 3 transports to sz36)
Burma 7 inf, 1 art => India
Shan state 3 inf => Burma
India build 4 inf
(if no Sealion, build Persia factory)

ANZAC2: Shan state inf => Burma

Turn 3:
China: aim at taking Yunnan

@simon33:

I haven’t had much success with strategies like the one proposed except when Germany spends some of its money on fleet. That gives ussr a bit ight breathing room to do something.

But I agree with you, in case Germany goes for barbarossa, Russia should focus on wars in Eastern Front.  Again Yunnan and India worries me.  The above implies that China should defend J3 take and hold Yunnan by itself…

@SubmersedElk:

To clarify, I was discussing the merits of buying a stack of 4 bombers and sending them to the Pacific.

Sure one bomber might get some targets to snipe at - but a full round buy doesn’t add much to what you already got with the starting bomber. Anything can be effective against an opponent making serious mistakes like leaving a transport stack naked and open to attack, and in a case like that, one bomber is as effective as four.

The issue is with the mechanics of movement over the oceans. A Japanese transport at a harbor can be in range to attack a bomber while the bomber is not in range to attack the transport, despite the vast difference in base movement - an airfield for the bomber makes no difference. Land units can effectively move 5 spaces to attack when using a transport at a harbor (one load, three move, one drop). The bomber would need 8 move total to attack that transport and return to base, and of course it only gets 7 with the airport and 6 without.

It’s totally counterintuitive when you look at base move 2 for ships and base move 6 for bombers, but in practice, that transport can attack from one space further away than the bomber can.

In order for this to work you obviously cannot takeoff and land at the same territory. The Pacific allows for many landing areas so this is not necessarily a problem. Some good bomber moves in the north are to bring bombers from Hawaii to attack SZ 6 and land in Midway, and to take bombers in Midway and attack Japan and land in Amur. That extra move is what really makes the difference.

@regularkid:

If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.

I think bids are far outside the scope of this specific conversation, but since you mentioned it, I think that the way you use bids by adding extra units to the initial set up, ruin the game balance in earnest and are both moot and lame. At the same time. In a slightly derogatory way. Now if you play against real men, they will probably offer the US NO bid, which gives US extra NO money, distributed each and every turn. This money will not come to effect before Turn 3 or 4, so they will not ruin the first Turn set up balance. IMHO anyway, not alway but sure in Norway.

And in this case, the Persian factory is more worthwhile

I know people hate them but I like having a couple cruisers in my fleet accompanied by a good screen of subs and DDs to protect carriers. I’d rather spend 4 more IPCs and have two slightly less powerful rolls of the dice in a battle while still having the ability to soak the two hits a BB would get with one unit.

@Gargantua:

Never forget,

Subs can go through the straight of Gibraltar, weather you control it or not

I’ve sunk many an allied navy, at minimal loss, by popping a few Italian subs on the board, and blasting the allies for a round with sub/air attacks - through the straight.  Then following up with the GERMANS :P

But the door swings both ways…

100% agree w/you. I often buy both Italian, and German subs (S France, and/or Normandy) to set them back. You have to either kill their ground units so the are delayed, or destroy their fleet stranding their ground units to kill later. Once they get in the Med its a ruff road (or sea lane I guess).

I like to at least give everyone a list of their national objectives.

@FieldMarshalGames:

:?  Seems the purpose of my thread is completely lost…

Oh, well.  interesting and funny to read

Very funny indeed!