Japanese False Insertion

Canadian Balk…

Alaskas Interuptus…

I played two games on gleemax today, both times I played axis. The first game I lost against a good opponent, the second game I won, my first victory with axis :) So a veteran you could say I am not.

In the first game, I tried Cpt Jen’s Solomon Island trick, haha, what a flop that turned out to be. I am sure against the beginner it works a treat, but this guy just chucked his British sub in the Hawaiian islands. I was mortified, my two battleships, two planes, and 2 transports loaded with men ready for a massive assault had been delayed an entire turn by a measly sub. When it was my turn I then moved my Jap navy towards the panama canal. The game actually taught me alot. The navy at panama canal had alot of options, it could take the canal and then threaten west and east USA simultaneously, and then when USA had wasted a turn defending both with men, the Jap fleet could attack the allied atlantic fleet that threatens Germany. Now I have no put this idea into practice, but it seems to me that it seriously disrupts the allied all out assault on Germany, at least for 2 to 3 turns. Which in the mean time Jap tanks and Germany infantry will be making their way into Russia’s heartland.

Also I have finally put the aircraft carrier option to rest. Its a dumb idea against a skilled opponent, those 16 ipcs at the beginning of the game are crucial for Germany. If any German player buys an aircraft carrier, I would advise the allies to switch from a KJF to a KGF.

@LT04:

Japan does it normal Pearl attack (heavy) and China Invasion and reinforces FIC.

With one TRN (1 INF and 1 ART) + 1 BB goes to Alaska.

Japan cannot present a viable threat with only one transport. His build will reveal his true intentions.

As the US, HIT that BB/Tran with everything that can reach, it will never again be as vulnerable…land AF in WCan, possibly move CUS troops there to help guard them if Japan built more than one transport. Your US build can vary, but I’d put at least a couple ground units in WUS.

I wouldn’t bother moving the Atlantic fleet to the Pacific…takes too much time, and it’s needed against the Germans in most instances.

You can’t say for sure that the US had intended on going to Germany - they were probably planning on placing that fleet there from the start.

I disapprove of this strategy.  However, later on in the game, landing 2 transports in western canada usually makes the US way overbuild on ground forces out of panic.

@General:

I played two games on gleemax today, both times I played axis. The first game I lost against a good opponent, the second game I won, my first victory with axis :) So a veteran you could say I am not.

…

Also I have finally put the aircraft carrier option to rest. Its a dumb idea against a skilled opponent, those 16 ipcs at the beginning of the game are crucial for Germany. If any German player buys an aircraft carrier, I would advise the allies to switch from a KJF to a KGF.

I would spend a bit more time reading this site, plue the old A&A avalon hill forums, plus Caspian Sub. A german carrier is a fine option, if you know when to use it and what you are doing with it.

Yes well I have played five games with the aircraft carrier. I mean its 16 ipcs, so in a game where all allied nations go all out on Germany, its very nerve racking. Infact I believe it just enables the allies to get to close to soon. Yes I probably should read a bit more on it, but most people say not to use it to destroy allied fleets because its better off sitting there just defending the sea adjacent to Germany.

Just joined caspian sub, reading a great paper on german naval fleet. It recommends three transports not an aircraft carrier on rd 1. So looks like I have been going about the german navy in the wrong way.

@General:

Just joined caspian sub, reading a great paper on german naval fleet. It recommends three transports not an aircraft carrier on rd 1. So looks like I have been going about the german navy in the wrong way.

Caspian does recommend transports. And it works.

But that doesnt mean an AC is a bad buy.

You really need more experience with it then 5 games to know what works and what doesnt.

@Cobert:

I disapprove of this strategy.  However, later on in the game, landing 2 transports in western canada usually makes the US way overbuild on ground forces out of panic.

Precisely why the US should never build in E. USA for transport to Europe/Africa, but should build in W. USA and move through Canada.  Now if the Japanese drop a few guys in Alaska you are in absolutely no threat as America.