Germany Taking India - Go for Pacific Win?

@andrewaagamer

Thank you!

@rulebook_reviewer https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/31377/axis-victories-what-s-the-magic-trick

It’s already been discussed.

@Gargantua:

@Marshmallow:

but again my perspective on Sea Lion is that an early Sea Lion is a losing move under most circumstances.

Marsh

Im glad to see that your perspective has upgraded from �always a losing move� to �a losing move under most circumstances�. :)

I look forward to the day it evolves again to �under SOME circumstances� :)

:roll: :evil: :-D

The game in Seattle was very instructive.

Attacking the US first, and early, might not be an awful plan;  my buddy maphead did exactly as you describe in one of our recent games he first took out the US fleet, then the next turn took Hawaii, then fortified it.

However, the problem is that while Hono is a VC, focusing all your efforts there as Japan invites a mighty 100% defensive buy from the now at-war US.  Since Japan has not readied for Calcutta, Sydney, or Siberia, there isn’t a way to achieve the other important strategic goals.  Maphead decided to make a play for Sydney via Hawaii, but a stronger player will have fortified ANZAC too much by J4 to make it takeable without 100% japan commit.

As soon as you pivot, America then takes back Hawaii, since they are dedicating everything to it (and so is Japan in the form of defensive planes etc)

Strategies that try to win the game quickly often take gigantic risks.  Strategies that win the game slowly trade time for risk.

MakeMaps,

@Gargantua:

–Taking Australia is all about Bankrupting Australia.
–Take away their NO’s, get subs into the convoy zones, and land more troops than they can produce.
–Usually this is done -after- India/China have capitulated.

––I’d say,…YES, it’s possible to subjugate the entire Anzac command.
----But, like Gar has said, you should weigh all of the pros and cons first:

–By DOW against Anzac you also bring UK-Pacific and America into the conflict immediately thus allowing UK-Pacific to assist China in it’s struggle for survival.
–Also, you loose the 10 IPC NO for not being at war with UK-Pac, Anzac, & having not entered F.I.C.
–Also, you allow China to attain it’s NO of keeping the road open(with UK-Pac help). IMHO the bonuses YOU ATTAIN and the bonuses you DENY YOUR ENEMY usually add up to the difference in who wins the victory.
–I don’t mean to state the obvious,…and I absolutely love entirely new strategies,…but IMHO it’s an easier win to NOT DOW while beating up China and the road while building your forces to take Hong Kong, Phillipines, the Dutch East Indies, and eventually India.

----Just remember, It’s all about FUN, and the only thing that matters is having Fun while you WIN the game(more fun)!

“Tall Paul”

Gliven,

––There’s no need for any apology. We simply misunderstood each other. Have a good day.

Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”

Lanchester’s Law on wikipedia is the game theory I was thinking about.

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)