A few Q's

Yes, it is possible to take DC with Japan if you pull Operation Canadian Shield or a variant thereof (like if only Japan invades and Germany does not, or something.)

Yes, it takes a while to do.

Yes, it can be done faster than I did it against a44bigdog (I just did not want to invest in the bombers to SBR DC every round.)

Yes, Russia will most likely still fall before DC (because Russian territories are mostly worthless, Russia’s besieged by two nations simultaneously on two flanks and England’s being chewed alive and cannot support as readily where as America has a few high value territories allowing them to build at least 6 infantry a round even if everything else is gone (C. USA and E. USA))

That said, I still feel that the invasion of Hollywood is more a distraction to keep America out of the war than an effort to capture America.

After you’ve accomplished your primary objective of getting Moscow and the secondary objective of securing Berlin, then you can develop the shield to take out DC, assuming you have not been kicked off the North American continent at that point.

In my humble opinion.

You know, I have to admit.  I’ve been cooling it a lot with Japan lately.  Racing out to take over the world looks great on paper, but you have no security on your lines of supply.

I’m also growing to like the Sinkiang or even Novosibirsk Industrial Complex with Japan.  Especially if Germany is getting hammered. (Since it helps you rebuild after an assault on Moscow.)

The idea being, Moscow falls to Japan, Berlin falls to America on the same round.  If Germany owns Caucasus, the allies would be silly to liberate it.  That means Japan could really use the extra 2 units right there in the red zone, and when they DO get Caucasus (if ever) it only helps them more.

Remember, you can always shut down your factories in the rear if they are no longer needed.  No rule that says you MUST use all your factories to their full output capacity, eh?

I sent a pm to rjclayton a few days ago when this first started happening for us, informing him of the error.  He seemed to be one of the folks most closely associated with TripleA based on some of his posts.  I don’t know if he was the right person or not, but I haven’t heard anything back.

I do have to agree, working the summary manually has been pretty easy, but I think there’s a bit more controls in place if it’s all done in one step.  Not an issue for your average game, but if things get crazy competitive it’s something that might be nice to have for game admins/judges.

I only do 2 inf 2 art 2 arm if I’m going to mess with Ukraine on USSR1 or USSR2.  For that plan, you want to have attacking units on the front real quick, so it’s 2 inf 2 art on Cauc and 2 arm on Russia, all threatening Ukraine.

If I’m going W. Russia / Belorussia, I’ll usually go 8 inf, or sometimes 1 fighter 1 tank 3 inf.  In those situations, Germany can’t really afford to take anything in a forward position anyways.  If I get 8 inf, I can make my W. Russia stack bigger earlier.  If I get 1 fighter, I can hit Germany’s territories early.

@ShadowHAwk:

Australia and NZ can be good locations if you can get there without expending to much troops.
It is easy IPCs and they wont take it back. Also it cuts away 1 of the allied powers concentrated.

If you focus on 1 power it helps more efficient then on all powers.

Especialy the turn you build an Ic you might not be able to build enough troops to use all 4 trannies if you move 2 south then ( to enforce FIC ) you can take Australia next turn without losing much transport power but cutting in 3 more ipcs from the UK who at that point has verry little IPCs and is losing afrika making it completely dependant on the US to do anything at all.

Sure they’ll take it back . . . but only if it’s a KJF.  I assume this whole thread is pretty much based off a KGF assumption, because otherwise Japan should go inf/fighter turtle.

My typical Aus/NZ/Hawaii plan uses ONE transport, BB support shot(s) and a carrier.  I use the infantry from the southeastern islands to replenish.

Sometimes I can’t afford to go Aus/NZ/Hawaii depending on the India/Ssinkiang situation.

Then you could bombard should Caucus be taken, but yes, it seems rather ridiculous.

With regards to rolling crappy NAs, my clique has come up with a plan for that. We decide which one NA we would REALLY want, and then roll for two NAs. If either of our rolls end up as the one we chose, we would get only that one. If not, then we get whichever NAs we actually rolled. OR another way would be to choose two that we really want, and then roll for three, or even four. If you get the two you chose, then you get just those two, etc., etc.

But yes, I put that it’s a big part of my strategy, because the NA I get will affect what units I lean toward (Wolf Packs, Bonzai Attacks, etc.) Remember, also, that the NA you get can be combined with techs to further enhance your forces. (See “Tech/NA Combos” thread) In the above case of getting two NAs, you can make combinations there, too. Think of how hard it might be to take out Germany if they have Fortress Europe AND Atlantic Wall. D-Day would be SO much harder to pull off!

Just my two cents… :wink:

Because in WWII when bombers attack, the fighters deffending the territories and industrial complex……

So I think when the Attacker use Bomber Raid sent Bombers and Fighters, and defender could be use the defender fighters before the dice roller to the Industrial Complex