Dang, there is no way I will manage to keep my post count up with you guys racing so far ahead of me.
+1
Find another person to stalk again that will boost your count
(+1)
@AJGundam:
Find another person to stalk again that will boost your count
(+1)
What?
(+1)
@AJGundam:
Find another person to stalk again that will boost your count
(+1)
Person?
(+1)
The NA is Japan’s - “Tokyo Express”, and the Combined Bombardement is a Tech, researchable by any nation. A Japanese Tokyo Express Destroyer MAY conduct shore bombardment (if Japan has the Combined Bombardment tech) into an enemy territory while it unloads its 1 Inf into that territory as part of an amphibious assault.
Not a bad little combo, especially if you pair it with Banzai Attacks! Whoop!
~Josh
But it costs a lot of IPCs, and destroyers are not that much use outside of battle, and Japan will probably not be fighting any major coastal battles that it would not already win, barring the possible exception for Western US, for which numerous destroyers probably would not be much good unless Japan built mass destroyers in the first place, which would tip off a skilled Allied player.
(+1)
But it would sure go a long way toward keeping the Allies from stacking in Persia, Egypt, T-J and the entire east coast of Africa once you get to sz34 in force.
I call. (+1)
@AJGundam:
Find another person to stalk again that will boost your count
(+1)
Person?
(+1)
And raise…… (+1)
Jennifer Connelly. Yummy.
The NA is Japan’s - “Tokyo Express”, and the Combined Bombardement is a Tech, researchable by any nation. A Japanese Tokyo Express Destroyer MAY conduct shore bombardment (if Japan has the Combined Bombardment tech) into an enemy territory while it unloads its 1 Inf into that territory as part of an amphibious assault.
Not a bad little combo, especially if you pair it with Banzai Attacks! Whoop!
~Josh
But it costs a lot of IPCs, and destroyers are not that much use outside of battle, and Japan will probably not be fighting any major coastal battles that it would not already win, barring the possible exception for Western US, for which numerous destroyers probably would not be much good unless Japan built mass destroyers in the first place, which would tip off a skilled Allied player.
(+1)
But it would sure go a long way toward keeping the Allies from stacking in Persia, Egypt, T-J and the entire east coast of Africa once you get to sz34 in force.
I call. (+1)
But getting that many destroyers built and mobilized to that area will in turn probably mean that the Allies controlled more land up to that point, which in turn could fuel a navy and/or air force to sink those destroyers. In fact, I think that would be the case.
Call who?
(+1)
But getting that many destroyers built and mobilized to that area will in turn probably mean that the Allies controlled more land up to that point, which in turn could fuel a navy and/or air force to sink those destroyers. In fact, I think that would be the case.
Call who?
(+1)
I call the Russian bluff. Stacking in Bury is usually a bad idea even if I don’t attack it on J1.
My Japanese fleet rarely arrives at sz34 until the 5th round or so because I go after the south pacific IPC’s. That’s usually fast enough to close the canal before the Allies make it through. And I end up buying 4 or 5 more TP’s for use in sz34 anyway so for that price plus or minus a little extra pocket change I could have 3 more DDs to work with and still be able to land 4 units from persia to IEA. Once the fleet is assembled (2 BB, 2 CV, 4 fig, 4 DD, +/-1 TP) it would take the Allies a ton of IPC’s to knock it out of the water and a lot of time to do it since any navy would most likely have to go around Africa with the suez closed. More often than not the Allied navy has to rush into the Med and trade Egypt or T-J just to keep me from getting through the canal first or be stuck in sz12 protecting their TP’s from German air so they can get ground units through north Africa. One way or another the Allies rarely have the time or resources to devote exclusively to killing the Japanese fleet. The only real drawback is the IPC’s spent to develop Combined Bombardment.
I may have started this race late, but I’m getting a lot of mileage out of this thread. (+1)
And raise…… (+1)
Jennifer Connelly. Yummy.
I throw the rulebook at you. You are not allowed to do this, it is called “string-betting” and any reputable establishment would make you take your raise back.
And raise…… (+1)
Jennifer Connelly. Yummy.
I throw the rulebook at you. You are not allowed to do this, it is called “string-betting” and any reputable establishment would make you take your raise back.
You’re right. I will reluctantly take my raise of Jennifer Connelly back. Well, ok. Not so reluctantly.
I’m sure we can come to an . . . arrangement . . . of Jennifer Connelly on the side.
Yes, yes, side bets are always fair game.
Well that all depends on what you guys are offering before I toss JC back into the pot.
