Giving the Japanese player fits

@Comical_Sans:

Thanks for the feedback sjlr1! In terms of tech, are rockets particularly great in europe/africa? For one game I’ve had is that with a German-Russo Stalemate with Italy trying to contest Africa with America, (With an Italian Industrial Complex on Egypt), and both the Soviets and Americans had developed rockets. So they kept on around the clock strategic bombing and rocket strikes on the Industrial Complex in Germany and the Italian Industrial Complex in Egypt, forcing the two Axis powers to constantly repair their factories. On turn 5, three bombers from U.S. all got a six during a strategic bombing on Italy’s Egypt Industrial Complex, completely shattering Italy’s already fragile economy. By turn 7, the around the clock bombing forced Italy to withdraw from Africa completely and Germany, being bogged down by U.S., U.K. and USSR bombings and rockets, were purchasing less and less units. By turn nine, Japan also got kicked out of the Asian mainland, and was stuck with the home isles and an IC in the East Indies. At the same time, Italy only retained the boot as the Russians and a few British mechanized infantry took the Balkans. By Turn nine, Italy had capitulated, with Germany only retaining Germany and Norway. After Germany fell, the Allies won with a total of 15 Victory Cities. The combination of Strategic Bombings and Rockets forced Italy and Germany back when they seemed to have an initial advantage. So are Rockets a tech that the European Powers should aim for?

Rockets are a great tech for the USSR and UK, as the UK can reach either Italy or Germany with its AA in the British mainland, and if the Japanese or italians have built an IC then the one in india can do harm as well. The USSR starts of with 3 AA guns, and all can reach Italy or Germany, which can be devastating. Most of the time, USSR needs most of its money buying infantry and tanks to fight the Germans but can afford a few tech tokens early in the game. It’s a little less useful for the US unless they put their AA guns on a transport and shuffle them somewhere (Okinawa or Iwo Jima against Japan, B United Kingdom against Germany or Italy), which can be a bit tedious. And if the US and UK spam bombers like you said, the Axis will be hurting badly! You could try playing with the Escorts/Interceptors optional official rule if you wish.
Hope this helps

@Aegis:

Hi, just go through the threads here. Lots of good discussions. I personally, dont think a bid is necessary and feel the game is pretty balanced. You just have to play with differing strategies from revised.

Are you playing with the optional rules of National Objective and/or weapons development?

These change the game greatly.

the juggernaut that is the japanese fleet is virtually unstoppable….therefore you have to deal with the overland assault…sacrifices have to be made…all eastern russian forces must be combined to threaten manchuria.  in aa50 the loss of fighters makes it hard to attack manchuria.  so u have to take a defensive posture or attackif u r feelin lucky.  mass the chinese for a counterattack and build an ic in india and run 3 tanks out of there…try and close the salient…sometimes it works…sometimes it dont…dice

Reason I like buying subs for my japan is cheep fodder.  Usually if US goes pacific i’m stalling to hold on to my money islands just long enough to crush russia, not to actually fight the US.  Because of that, cost is everything to me.

If I wanted an actual show down i’ll focus on fighters (as my 3 carriers can typically allow 12 to attack if based properly) and bombers with a sprinkling of DDs.

Persia is the true center.  When it falls, allies are usually screwed.  If held, Berlin typically falls.

@atarihuana:

ive seen many people hit sz56 yet often i refuse to do this and rather send 4 fighter to the BB for a clean kill. i dislike sending my only naval fodder unit to get killed round 1. also the british DD / TN off india gets kiled and the planes are in range.  the CA would  be at phillipines or at sz51 with the carriers.  so even if it is a tradeoff and i loose my BB, CA, DD  i still have 3 carriers + my naval builds while US has its remaining subs. not good.

since US has invested most to all of its money in the pacific its no big deal if it takes one more turn to take australia or india.

I had considered this as well.

I have even attempted it a couple of times.

I even thought of keeping the destroyer out and using only the fighters.

My conclusions:

The kill in SZ 53 is virtually assured.  It’s a matter of if you lose only the destroyer or also a fighter, if you send Destroyer, 2 Fighters in to attack the Battleship.

If you keep the destroyer, you risk a fighter, however, you have 9 fighters at the start of the game and 3 carriers, so you have some to spare.  Also, if you keep the destroyer, you can use it, in conjunction with at least 6 of your fighters, to attack SZ 56 if America puts submarines in the water.  This is a plus in my opinion because it means America either does not put only submarines in the water, puts them in SZ 10 instead, or builds surface ships which are more costly giving you an edge to get into position.

However, the added transport and Destroyer gives the American’s too much of an edge, IMHO.  Besides, when are you going to have a 33% chance to trade a fighter for a destroyer AND a transport (10 IPC for 15) and a 67% chance to lose nothing and get a destroyer and a transport in this game?

thanks  for agreeing

@spectre_04:

…  Just an example of how the luck of the dice in reference to technologies can really make your game!!!

Yuck!

Let’s play yahtzee!

Lots less set up, same luck