What's Your Usual Eastern Ruskie Move?

I guess Sealion isn’t the best idea.  Germany would have to do all the work by him/her self.

Going at the US would be better both Japan and Germany could work together and like Jen said who would think that was going to happen.

LT

@Hamar:

ok, so i was a little rough.  i apologize.  i was actually hoping that i could instigate you to try a game or two against some experienced opponents.  you obviously are interested in discussing/working out ideas and strategies, and i am impressed that you are so willing to listen when others critique your ideas.  everyone could learn a little from you in that respect.  anyways, i’m going to offer a few ideas on the other topics that you have posted!

Apology Accepted; and mine offered in return.

To be all honest, All I CAN do it seems is to discuss strategy here, take those ideas and test them myself using my apparently poor version of PC based A&A.

I’ll discuss anything.  Hell one of my earliest posts was in response to a KGF strategy I had never seen implemented to the degree that appears so common here.  It worked, as far as it went, just could not withstand the subsequent UK/US counter.

And I am not afraid to try crazy ideas either (see my Japan AF transfer post to blast the allied fleet in J4 in another thread).  There are so few major variants that exist in the early stages of the game, and discussing later stages is next to impossible because of all that preceeds it.  I am willing to consider even the most off-the wall ideas, if there is a chance it might be plausible.  About the only things that are not worth strategy discussions are things like “roll all tech as Japan until you hit Heavy Bombers” or other such tripe.

I prefer to play with the base units, no technology, wth the game rules as they exist (except to “boost” my oponent in a PC game to make it moe challenging).  And I like to play the Axis.  I play a strong Japan, whether the US goes after Japan or Germany.  So my main posts here are always going to be from the perspective of boosting Germany, helping Germany survive long enough for Japan to be a threat in Europe/Central Asia, or weakening Allied powers to allow Germany to survive long enough for Japan to flex its might.

If anyone knows of a real-time online gaming site, or if anyone has the Hasbro version and would like exchange information to set up a game, I am more than willing.  I just need a time and an IP address…

I have to concur with the others who have posted.  A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go.  If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia.  While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units.  Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia).  Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too).  That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia.  So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it.  If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about.  YAKUT is the key for Japan.  Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces.  The drain on Russia:  defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support.  And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)

@Wise:

@F_alk: air has a… EXCEPTION on p. 21 …

If you just read p. 21 then there isn’t enough info on that page to cover how ANY unit move in NC so how do you solve that then if you think p.12 to 17 is just for combat? Of course you read each “How They Move”-section for each unit and apply it in NC as well. You can’t just pick a line here and there and say that this is for Combat only but that is for NC as well, either all or nothing!

Absolutely true.
I take the rules for Combat movement, apply them onto Combat move.
I take the modifications and exceptions written down in NC movement rules, and apply the “Combat move rules modified by the NC movement rules” to the NC move.
I don’t apply the pure Combat move rules to NC, and i don’t apply the modified rules to Combat moves.

Hard to say. 2 junior but equal players might always end up with an allied victory. 2 medium but equal players might end up with an axis win most of the time. 2 experts and equal end up with allied victories.

3rd edition helps allies more then axis IMHO.
RR and German rockets alone might be enough, if not give germany jet power (ftrs defend on a 5). Somebody at our group coined the term piranha for a German jet fighter. Couple of those in a stack of infantry adds some back bone! No rolling 4 times each always missing, they always take a bite!

BB

BB,

i am kind of right and wrong. Just as you stated the “steady state”, i mentioned the process of getting there.

On the other hand, I believe a South african IC can work rather well:

Ger1: Invade french east africa with 4 inf (2 from transport), 1 tank. Assume no losses.

UK1: Transport over 2 inf into territory directly below frech east africa, fly fighter to south africa, build IC there.

Ger2: Attack Territory below fr. eas. afr, assume 1 inf. lose.

UK2:build 2 inf, or possibly 1 inf 1 fighter.

Germany will now face 3 infantry and 1 fighter( or, preferably, 2 infantry and 2 fighters) vs. likely 3 infantry and 1 tank. Barring lucky dice, germany will not be able to take it, and the UK can now pump 2 tanks a turn and retake africa.

The germans are now faced with two options:

Build transports, and pump more men into africa

or

Forget africa, concentrate on defending europe, crushing russia.

If they choose the first option, they’ll have to buy at least 1 or 2 transports, and it’ll be at least 4 turns before they can take S. Afr, and even when they do take it they will gain very little from it, as they will already have all of africa at that point.

If they choose the second option, UK gains the 11 prod. from africa, and then can push forces into asia in attempt to aid the likely beleagured russians.

Like japan against russia in normal A&A.
Or Germany against anyone but russia.
:smile: