The only ally Japan can attack without consequences is China.
Yep, this I agree with! The rest I mostly agree with :-D
To clarify – I’m not sure about Sea Lion feint/land in Nenensia being devasting. It seems like it would depend on bad play by Russia. That’s a lot like expecting White to play Byrd’s opening in chess… I would welcome elucidation about why you think this particular Axis trope is devastating.
In any event, I think we’re pretty much on the same page.
Marsh
The game is way more balanced than people like to think.� The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions;� the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack;� the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
Agree 100% I’m still yet to experience this imbalance, despite over 100 live games, with a large variety of opponents, under my belt at this point.
It only takes 1 transport to feint :-D
I dunno Marsh, I do play Russia badly at times, its very easy to assume that Archangelsk and Nemestia are in your backfield.
Here are my Russia rules I never follow;
What sometimes happens is that Russia is tempted (or forced by G1) to leave some men in the Vyborg/Karelia/Finland death zone and the map is expertly designed to make it super easy to cut off the German forces in Novograd by controlling or can-opening Belarus. Smart players then abandon this front once it becomes untenable, because anything that gets left up there is going to die. It is good to take Finland and Norway, but esp during G1G2, its easy to take back and they need only 2 trans to keep it forever.
It is when they abandon this front that the opening occurs. A lot of players will turtle Moscow; hardly anyone puts anything on Vologda. This is where you need troops.
If the germans get a carrier and a few transports, UK will freeze up and turtle. At this point you have options
If you pull this off right, you can grab a second round of troops off scandanavia, putting half your force north of Moscow and half west. At this point, the Japanese can land their entire air force on your LZ (usually this is Vologda from Chahar a turn after).
unlike most naval strategies, you aren’t necessarily 100% in with navy. Only need 2-3 trans and sea cover.
Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced. Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.
@Arthur:
Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced. Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.
In spite of you 3-peating me, I would say that small moves at the start make a very large difference.
Some standard moves/inactions I find quite incomprehensible. Not landing on Sumatra or buying an Indian fighter UK1 are my two faves. Majority of my games as Allies don’t see Calcutta fall. Although I have much more trouble holding on to Moscow than most.
I’m not convinced that the convention wisdom is fully evolved. I guess that means this game has life in it yet even for experienced players. Says something pretty solid about it.
So to clarify again, one thing at a time…
Japan can declare war on UK+ Anzac and NOT with the US. Is this correct?
Hence , Japanese Navy can do a double play, where the weak UK+ Anzac Navy is cleared out for the loss of a couple of TB, whose spots are taken over by FTRS.
This makes the US auto-DOW related decision on attacking the 3 CV+BB+ CRU+ 3 DD+ Sub +5FTR+TB , almost suicidal…hence it has to clear out…only that whether IJN follows it or not, allowing Japan is sucking Island money.
This again, makes US have a devilish choice to make…keep building in W. COAST, to prevent Japan from winning, or help Moscow…by attacking Rome/Normandy.
I have done this twice, won the game as Japan twice, and thought it is perfectly legal.
Please let me know if this is not the case.
Curious about what you are saying here?
If you move most of the IJN to SZ26 J1 or J2, can’t the US evacuate to SZ54 and then Japan don’t get the benefit of the Naval base while the US can use the anzac airbase and fleet to defend.
I guess they have the other option of evacuating towards SZ10 but this would not work very well if the IJN moves in J1. Is that what you are suggesting? Sounds a strong move because you can divide the USN and cause it to decide to go full atlantic, not declare against the IJN or perhaps try to defend SZ10 which I’m not sure how it could succeed. Certainly forces a response and takes initiative away from the USA.
@Arthur:
Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced. Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.
In spite of you 3-peating me, I would say that small moves at the start make a very large difference.
Some standard moves/inactions I find quite incomprehensible. Not landing on Sumatra or buying an Indian fighter UK1 are my two faves. Majority of my games as Allies don’t see Calcutta fall. Although I have much more trouble holding on to Moscow than most.
I’m not convinced that the convention wisdom is fully evolved. I guess that means this game has life in it yet even for experienced players. Says something pretty solid about it.
Great point and I strongly agree. I’ve played against the “unbeatable strategies” many times and they are anything but. Not saying I’ve never lost with the Allies, but an idea such as “JDOW1 done correctly breaks the game” has been proven false many times in games I’ve played (on both sides).
@Arthur:
**Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced.** Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.Â
I agree with you here. The allies have to be played perfect with excellent dice to win without a bid. Rolling Moscow is too easy without a bid. Anyone want to play a friendly game I am willing to show you how easy it can be done.
The game is evolving and it seems like the Allied bids are slowly creeping up as Axis players are learning to compensate. I agree with cyanight that getting to Moscow is easy for a non-bid game unless the Allies play perfectly or the dice are against you. It is like clockwork:
G1: build arts
G2: build tanks/mechs
G3: declare war, move to Eastern Poland, purchase planes or tanks, bomb Moscow if possible
G4: March to Belarus, bomb Moscow again if possible, purchase fast movers
G5: March to Bryansk, purchase planes
G6 or G7 invade Moscow
If the Allies do a KGF plan, scrap this plan and focus on an economic victory as Japan expands to 80+ PUs/round. Eventually the US will have to spend 100% of their budget in the Pacific to contain the monster.
With perfect Allied gamplay and above average dice rolls, Axis can fail. Still I would give the odds of victory to be 75+% when both sides are played by skilled people. You even can get a fast win 10% of the time in a non-bid game when the UK fails in the Med/Africa. Italy can be standing in Egypt in the first few rounds and there is nothing that the Allies can do to recover. Italy builds a factory there, Germany provides a few planes to strengthen the position, and the Axis economy expands to astonishing heights. That can happen ~3% of the time in matches with heavy Allied bids in the Med. Time to start a new game…
@Arthur:
The game is evolving and it seems like the Allied bids are slowly creeping up as Axis players are learning to compensate. I agree with cyanight that getting to Moscow is easy for a non-bid game unless the Allies play perfectly or the dice are against you. It is like clockwork:
G1: build arts
G2: build tanks/mechs
G3: declare war, move to Eastern Poland, purchase planes or tanks, bomb Moscow if possible
G4: March to Belarus, bomb Moscow again if possible, purchase fast movers
G5: March to Bryansk, purchase planes
G6 or G7 invade MoscowIf the Allies do a KGF plan, scrap this plan and focus on an economic victory as Japan expands to 80+ PUs/round. Eventually the US will have to spend 100% of their budget in the Pacific to contain the monster.
With perfect Allied gamplay and above average dice rolls, Axis can fail. Still I would give the odds of victory to be 75+% when both sides are played by skilled people. You even can get a fast win 10% of the time in a non-bid game when the UK fails in the Med/Africa. Italy can be standing in Egypt in the first few rounds and there is nothing that the Allies can do to recover. Italy builds a factory there, Germany provides a few planes to strengthen the position, and the Axis economy expands to astonishing heights. That can happen ~3% of the time in matches with heavy Allied bids in the Med. Time to start a new game…
I seem to be in the minority here, but I still don’t see this plan as an almost guaranteed Axis win (especially since I’ve seen it beat several times, on both sides of the aisle). Every time I see an Axis strategy written out it never seems to factor that the Allies get to play the game too.
If Germany buys all art G1, tanks/mechs G2, then it’s obvious they are going Barbarossa, and the Allies simply have to prepare for it. Two turns of 9 inf and a fighter for Russia, take Persia UK1, factory there UK2, and US going heavy EUS, and suddenly it’s not a gimme. By turn four the US will either be dominating the Med or landing in Norway (either way they will easily have 6-8 loaded transports in tow); Russia will have at least 7 fighters (one per turn for at least 3 turns, and the UK will send a plane per turn from Persia to Moscow starting on turn 4), making bombing raids difficult (if not impossible) for Germany and the UK will be assisting the US in either the Med or Norway, while providing support to Russia.
Japan can still be contained, as the US can spend the majority of its money in the Pacific from turn 3 on. Plus, Russia should use the Siberian troops to push into Japan on turn three, either into Korea or Manchuria depending on how it looks.
None of these things guarantee an Allied victory of course, but I’ve seen the all out rush to Moscow fail too many times to agree that it’s virtually unbeatable
The Moscow push definitely can be countered by heavy spending by the Allies in the Atlantic, as you mention. 100% US build in the Atlantic for the first two turns, plus a large number of UK fighters in Moscow, is enough to stall a G6-G7 attack on Moscow. That does give Japan a window to expand, requiring major US spending from turn 3 onward. The returned focus of the Allies on the Pacific allows Germany options to push into the Middle East.
At that point, the game requires both perfect Allied gameplay, and good dice rolls. I find that the Axis has usually won if Japan still is swapping control of the Money Islands with the Allies when Germany has control of Persia & Iraq. The economic output of Germany is just too large to counter. Certainly a better player can pull out a victory against an inferior player a majority of times. Nobody is questioning that. The argument is that evenly matched players will not be able to achieve 50% win rates as Allies without a bid. If the game really was balanced, I would expect that top players would gladly play Allies +20 and consistently crush their opponents.
If Japan does NOT declare war on W. Allies till J4, then US domination of Med and Norway is delayed 1 turn.
That one turn is crucial, because , it buys time for Germany to buy 1 more turn against USSR.
That is what usually tips the balance of power toward Axis for good, either, through an Economic victory, by caging Moscow.
Thus bringing in Japan to attack J2 or J3 allows for a more equitable game for Allies.
Hence, the change in TR loading rule, in response to TMG, disturbs the balance of the game, hence must be reversed to allow for a non-bid, fairly playable game for both the sides.
Hence, the change in TR loading rule, in response to TMG, disturbs the balance of the game, hence must be reversed to allow for a non-bid, fairly playable game for both the sides.
While it could very well be that it slipped by me, I don’t recall any official change to the transport loading rules.
Marsh
I don’t know of any change of transport rules also. I find that J4 is a very poor choice. It gives three full turns of huge income for India, making it difficult for Japan to get to the capitol. I have found that J1 is a great option if Russia doesn’t send reinforcements to stack in Yunnan. Sometimes I delay to J3 if I need two turns to beat back Russian + Chinese forces, but have never done a J4.
The reason to do a J4 is to help Germany in the Atlantic. Japan does take quite a hit from doing so though, as you point out.
I think MeinHerr is referring to the ability of UK to block loading Japan’s transports by moving a surface warship into the seazone then having ANZAC declare war and thus making the seazone hostile with the transports.
I don’t like this tactic but its not much different than something else that is allowed. This same ability can be seen when a power builds a warship in a seazone with transports. This happens a lot with UK/USA transports loading/unloading in Normandy.
I don’t think it should be accepted in either case but the rules support the later.
When does that cause an issue? English channel is normally the only time. Are you saying that you think the rule that you can’t load a TT in a hostile SZ should only apply when the TT has to move into that SZ or something?
When does that cause an issue? English channel is normally the only time. Are you saying that you think the rule that you can’t load a TT in a hostile SZ should only apply when the TT has to move into that SZ or something?
Im not sure what is the best way to resolve it. At first I thought maybe you should not allow deployment into hostile seazones but then it would be easy to block sea production.
I don’t think the rule needs change.
