Russian Strategy

Well I think the likelyhood of Japan taking both China and Sinkiang is very low in fact.  If you think about it Japan starts with only 7inf on the ground and 3ftrs bmb for offense.  China with 2inf ftr is more dangerous than one would expect and because of this it is my feeling that you must send at least 3inf ftr bmb just to guarantee a good shot at clearing it.  Additionally, Sink can only be attacked with 2inf + some air and is a lesser priority so in fact it is safe to assume that one of these will go badly.  Further Japan spreading out its offensive ability on turn 1 is a high risk high reward move as you could also lose all these battles which will really slow down Japan.  Losing say 6inf just to kill an irrelevent 2inf ftr or an extra 2inf is not a good idea.  Further, if the Brits pull just 1 Indian guy or 1 Syrian back to Persia they will have an opportunity to attack the infantry put in India by Japan.  If the Brits can nibble at these forces while spread out, and the Japanese hurt themselves by spreading out then it is far easier to slow Japan down than if you play defense where Japan will maintain its relative strength by virtue of not attacking.

Secondly, what gain is there to moving 2inf from India to Sink anyway?  If the Japanese want to risk it they can still attack it, and if they do you risk losing more of what little strength in Asia you do have.  Additionally, Japan can still take India, and Britain is still left attacking with 1inf + air to clear it so what’s the difference?

Finally, your primary reason against abandoning India is that the IPC swing is too great but in fact even with a defense of India or Sink Japan can still attack one or the other, and for that reason the IPC swing is almost as great so in fact the vacating of India actually costs the Brits very little.  Whether the British are in India or not the Japanese should be able to take China and India or Sink which is a 10ipcs swing.  The difference is but only 1guy which is more than worth it for the British.

Well, don;t congratulate me too much yet.  I still need to play-test the consolidation of Japan strategies against various counters and against pre-emptive strikes.

The taking of Manchuria as a pre-emptive by Russia does not bother me (I actually think it is to Japan’s advantage to have Russia take Manchuria in R1).  But the Kwangtung Maneuver and the Yakut Consolidation could both create some glitches… Kwangtung requiring a shift of forces to re-take Kwangtung, a shift that splits the capital ship consolidation; and also opens up India to taking in J1.  Both of those open up holes in the Japan front leaving them strategically vulnerable, but also represent very significant tactical and economic victories.

I need to evaluate just how much Russia can send land forces to re-inforce Yakut and the K/N/E perimiter, and what counter-attacks may be possible on Sinkiang and how quickly Japan can reinforce Central Asia.  Allied land and air force shifts also need to be reviewed; both through Russia and through Africa.

What impact would a US Submarine Wolfpack being built in US2 have on the strategy?  Or Hawaii, surrounded by the initial US Pacific Fleet, stacked with 3 INF, and used as a BOMBER BASE would have (bombers to threaten Japan tranny’s if the capital ships fled, or to tilt the scales to allow the US PAC FLT, with strong air support, to sweep in and neutralize Japan’s stream of forces to Asia.  Or perhaps staging forward to Wake to allow those same bombers to SBR Japan?

Oviously this Japan strategy is not fool proof.  What it is is an example of a counter to a KGF strategy that just MIGHT force the US to pay more attention to the Pacific, or risk Japan and Germany linking up in the Eastern Med.

And preventing all  3 Allies from ganging up on Germany is the idea… Germany can beat Russia 1-on-1, and can stand toe-to-toe with Russia and an economically weakened UK in a defensive war.  The US is what tips the scales against Germany, so delaying that 3rd ally joining in Europe and/or moving forward so fast and so strongly that Japan is able to criple UK economically, as well as weaken Russia, are the only ways the Axis can win.

Care to be more specific? Where should the russian player attack? And while it is potentially a valid strategy in no-bid depending on how it is implemented, Russia cannot attack without the allies so what is the point in mentioning them? I mean, I’m glad you came up with a “other strategy”, but why don’t I just list all of the other options you could potentially come up with. Germany - attack or defend, uk - attack or defend, japan - attack or defend, us - attack or defend. Now that I’ve covered all the strategies, maybe we can dig into details a bit?

I meant that each fighter has a 50% chance of a hit. You really only need one, IMO. (sorry, I just plain dont see that transport as a threat. it’s only 1 tank or 2 infantry!) Besides, the UK can take it out later.

And yea, I conceed that you might still loose the sub in spain. So perhaps dumping that tranny on Canada would be better.

I’m still not going all out with Russia as mentioned in post 1. Although, I was thinking about it, and it is a good way to reduce the number of units on the board, dramatically. Perhaps a way to open Finland or E. Euro up for an invasion sooner by the allies? (BTW, unless I can get jap fighters, I don’t like to attack with my eastern russian forces. If I can get jap fighters, I’ll sacrifice 7 infantry and a tank just to get 1 or 2 enemy fighters!)

That’s exectly what disussion should be about.
And this site certainly helped me to get better.

Ever heard of the old saying that it doesn’t matter who wins or losses, just whoever takes the most of a beating. I think that principle can be applied here. As for gearing up for the war, American industry just wasn’t fully mobilized. If you compare production rates of military arms of WWII vs. the Vietnam War (and the Vietnam War lasted how many heres), you’ll see the real story.

moved to the Axis and allies forum.