Preferred option to stall Japanese expansion.

@gnasape:

WOPR can you provide more details?  It’s hard to imagine that a factory in India would be that much of a trouble to Japan.

I don’t like to get into too much specifics on a strategy in a forum where I may find future opponents. I like to surprise people and try to make them play a game they haven’t played before.

@falconrider:

Something i was trying for a while is to fly US bombers and fighters to Stanovj and Strat Bomb Japan from there.  It’s a big investment for the Japanese to throw 7 or 8 USSR inf + 2 US ftrs out of there.  You can if you can afford it move 1 or 2 USSR arm there and/or fly the UK ftr’s there too.

@Captain:

Hmmm, this has me thinking.  If I get the Axis in our next game (we draw markers every time) I just might try the SBR on Japan from Russia (with US/UK bombers) coupled with a show of US coming after Japan from the West coast.  This would really force Japan to pull their fleet home to help protect since their building would be limited.  This should relieve some pressure from Africa/Australia/India allowing UK to keep some IPC’s for 2/3 extra rounds.  UK might be able to buy an India IC on UK2/3 and hold it if Japan pulls back.  Any thoughts, problems with this?

Regards,
Captain Crunch

“From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step” — Napoleon Bonaparte

The Australia IC CAN be a good investment IF things go sour for Japan on J1 or J2 with a failure to capture Australia. This can provide a steady trickle of units to nip at Japan’s heels and keep them occupied.

The UK transport can also have some other uses in the Pacific. Normally if it is used it will take the Carolines and the US will re-enforce. But once there it has the POTENTIAL to perhaps liberate Borneo or Sumatra if the conditions are right. It might even be worthwhile to do a suicide run with the TN to do so.

I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.

I would be leery of trying to SBR Japan from Stanovoj. 1st Japan should have more than one addition IC up and running by turn 3 at the very latest. So unlike Germany with its one IC Japan will have other production options. 2. Japan has plenty of firepower they can quickly bring to bear against such. Think of it like India. If Japan really WANTS it they WILL take it.

Now as far as dealing with Japan, I like having the US go all out against Japan. The east coast units and transport may go to Africa and I may send a few infantry this way using such if it survives. I also send the starting bombers to England for SBR duty unless an opportunity arises on J1 to cause some grief to Japan. Provoking a Naval arms race with Japan with the US is not necessarily a bad thing even if they are outproducing the US. Every boat they put in the water is not boots on the ground and this is where I think the old everybody jump on Germany fails in this edition. While Japan may or may not have captured Moscow when Berlin or Rome goes they will have accumulated massive numbers of troops throughout Asia while the Allies units have basically been whittled away each turn fighting against the European Axis. Even if the units are equal in numbers the Allies are spread amongst 2 or 3 countries (depending if Russia fell) while Japan’s are a single Nations that can attack together as opposed to defending together.

@a44bigdog:

I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.

You’re right about that. If Japan really WANTS India, they’ll get it… Eventually. However, if the Allies play it right they can make them pay dearly for it. Both in terms of troops, and more importantly, time. A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.

@WOPR:

@a44bigdog:

I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.

You’re right about that. If Japan really WANTS India, they’ll get it… Eventually. However, if the Allies play it right they can make them pay dearly for it. Both in terms of troops and more importantly, time. A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.

Same goes for the Eastern Russia thing.  Japan can take it, but at what cost?

@a44bigdog:

A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.

Obvious. But are the allies who have to run, because axis has economic advantage in this scenario (from round 3 as much). If you send soviets to India, you will lose Karelia, Ukranie and such. China is a super good puppet for Japan, and also India. There no solution for 1941 scenario puzzle: allies cannot hold Asia, not a chance, due poor setup and very poor, by gaming and historical reasons, China rules (that make China more a puppet for Japan than an aid for allies). If you have a theater lost even before rolling dices, you cannot win the war

@Funcioneta:

Obvious. But are the allies who have to run, because axis has economic advantage in this scenario (from round 3 as much). If you send soviets to India, you will lose Karelia, Ukranie and such.

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

@Funcioneta:

There no solution for 1941 scenario puzzle: allies cannot hold Asia, not a chance, due poor setup and very poor, by gaming and historical reasons, China rules (that make China more a puppet for Japan than an aid for allies). If you have a theater lost even before rolling dices, you cannot win the war

You keep beating that “1941 scenario is broken” drum but it’s not true. I think it’s your game play that is flawed, not the game.

While I’m on it what’s with you and China? Why do you think they should be upgraded to a full power? They were not an industrialized nation at the time and were very marginalized. Why should they be producing tanks and bombers?

The problem with China is that Japan can kill it J1 without losing some of real importancy. After China goes India, because Japan starts with 5 trannies (unless you want lose Moscow sending soviet army to India). Game lost, axis collects more money than allies

You claim historical accuracy with non-industrial stuff. However, China had a horde army (not represented, China collects, with luck 1 or 2 inf), attacked Burma (as Revised manual said) and I’m pretty sure there was no blitzkrieg of Japan tanks in non-industrial, mountain zones of China

Even if I don’t like seeing China as a popping inf machine, my main issue is that China is not playable, not only because of setup, but also because of the many bugs and sploits that axis can abuse against her. In AA Pacific, China was still a popping inf machine, but it was playable: it resisted J1  :-P, costed a pain for Japan to conquer it and the fricking fig was not dead round 1 (and could be replaced). I don’t like China in AA Pacific, I think needs better treat, but it works. That level would be one with I could live

If you have the solution with vanilla game, say it. I’ll believe it when I see it

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

If allies have the economic advantage against axis, you are not playing axis right or you are having extreme luck (probably a combo of both)

China cannot hold (7 IPCs)
India cannot hold (7+5 of NO = 12 IPCs)

Germany will collect 40-45 IPCs, Italy 10-25 against 30 of soviets and 25-30 from UK. Balanced? True, but the problem is the 65-70 of Japan against 43-48 of USA

Forget the SBRs: axis can do more than allies. Forget the old ignore Japan strat: it only gives even more money to axis and forces USA to fight in America instead of Pacific Ocean and Africa/Europe

@Funcioneta:

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

If allies have the economic advantage against axis, you are not playing axis right or you are having extreme luck (probably a combo of both)

WOPR, I would like to know how you are keeping an economic advantage with the allies if you suggest we are not playing them right.  Any insight you can give would be much appreciated because I for one have a difficult time holding the economic advantage in 1941.

@Funcioneta:

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

If allies have the economic advantage against axis, you are not playing axis right or you are having extreme luck (probably a combo of both)

Well only one way to settle this. We’ll have to have ourselves a game. Then we’ll see who is and isn’t employing a good strategy.

@Captain:

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

WOPR, I would like to know how you are keeping an economic advantage with the allies if you suggest we are not playing them right.  Any insight you can give would be much appreciated because I for one have a difficult time holding the economic advantage in 1941.

Like I’ve said, I don’t like to get into specifics on strategy on the forums. I like playing the Axis more than the Allies so I’m not eager to put effective Allied strategies out into the world.

@Cmdr:

yea, that is a mistake one not soon forgets!

Not sure how effectively you can SBR Japan from Stanovoj.  Not saying it is effective or ineffective, saying I’m not sure how effective it is! (some people like axis_roll will assume because I said “not sure how effective…” I mean completely ineffective and go off the deep end trying to prove me wrong, hence the clarification!)

I’d say it is a pretty heavy investment from what you are describing.

21-24 IPC in Russian Infantry

• 20 IPC in British Fighters
• 20 IPC in American Fighters
• 24 IPC in American Bombers
• 12 IPC in British Bombers (?)

That’s 88 IPC (if you dont bring the British Bomber) of units tied up to do 3.5 IPC damage per bomber on average. (10-11 Dmg a round expected.)

Just to put some perspective on it.  Again, I am NOT saying this is a GOOD or a BAD idea, I am only attempting to investigate further.

Hi Jen,

Basicly this tactic uses as was stated the majority of of starting units.  You stack up all the USSR inf and fly usually 2 US ftr is enough + as many US bombers as you need into Stanovj.  If the Japanese want to remove this threat they need to send more units in this direction than they usually want to.  When you feel like there’s enough threat you simply move back 1 space with the inf and fly the ftr’s back to the Pacific for carrier duty and the Bombers can either fly home, to the UK to hit Germany or what i like to do (if theres a Manchurian IC) is move to Russia and bomb it from there.  What i sometimes do with the US ftr’s is use them in what i call my Russian stack push where i stack up in either Eastern Ukr or Belorus with all i got and then flying 2 UK + 2 US ftr’s into the stack along with an AA gun.  Certainly gives Jerry something to think about when i do it again into East Poland and he’s dangerously thin of inf on the front.

@WOPR:

@Funcioneta:

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

If allies have the economic advantage against axis, you are not playing axis right or you are having extreme luck (probably a combo of both)

Well only one way to settle this. We’ll have to have ourselves a game. Then we’ll see who is and isn’t employing a good strategy.

Ok, Funcioneta(Axis) vs WOPR(Allies)!

I like playing the Axis more than the Allies
Here on this website, PBF.
Sign me up for a ringside seat.

I like playing the Axis more than the Allies.

This isn’t because the Axis have an advantage, is it?

Just playing Devil’s Advocate here.  :lol:

I personally am not completely sold on the idea that the Axis can not lose without horrible dice and/or poor gameplay, but it does seem that they do have a slight advantage in the eastern Asian region.

Buying anything for the Pacific not as good as buying thing for the Atlantic:

a single submarine bought for the pacific = 2 more infantry in France or Italy
a single carrier bought for the pacific = 1 tank + 3 more infantry in France or Italy
a single fighter bought for the pacific = 1 artillery + 2 more infantry in France or Italy

And what exactly do those submarines, carriers and fighters in the Pacific get for you?
You have to buy Transports and Troops for the Pacific TOO if you are going to threaten islands.
You will never take Japan’s island, and Asian mainland is far too many turns away to set up a shuck/transport chain.
Any money you spend on Transports and Troops IN the Pacific is money NOT spent on Submarines and Carriers and Fighters.
If you go all out and buy just navy, you have a small chance of actually destroying the Japanese Navy…. .but what then?  What do you do with that?  Japan still has her mainland factories pumping out guys on the way to Moscow.  You can’t and will never stop them.
If you buy some transports with the rest going to navy, you can take a couple islands here and there, cutting Japan’s income from 60 to maybe 40 after they lose an NO or two… but… they still have their navy sitting in Formosa or Japan, and their factories pumping out guys on their way to moscow.  You took some income from them, good job, but did you actually delay them more than a single turn with all that navy?  Nope.

Problem is that if you don’t buy US navy then Tojo can relax and pump everything into Moscow without spending a single ipc to increase it’s navy.  If the US match and try to surpass Tojo’s navy then they must spend ipc’s to counter what the US is doing.  If the US completely destroys the Japanese navy they can threaten both the asian mainland or Japan itself forcing the Japanese player to spend ipc’s defending Japan and China.  These are units that wont be threatening Russia.

I can play axis against any person wanting show a winning allied strat. I even did the -25 bid challenge (3 games), so I’m pretty tired of playing axis but I don’t mind. Just AABattlemap, normal forum dices, techs and NOs in play. Optionals escorts and straits not in play, just vanilla with tech and NOs. 15 or 13 VCs, your choice. 1941 I guess since that’s the issue we are talking. Any interested, just PM me

@Funcioneta:

Just AABattlemap, normal forum dices, techs and NOs in play.

Do you like the randomness of tech?  To me, I would run a pacific strat when playing with tech just because I MIGHT get long range or heavy bombers or even jets that can turn a naval stand-off between Japan and USA into a huge decisive winning battle.  I guess it works for Japan as well if they roll for tech.

I think a no-tech game makes it even harder to run a USA pacific strat.

I like complexity that gives tech, and the variations it adds. If you get surprised by LRA or HBs, you didn’t planned a counter to those techs

USA should build Pacific all the games. You don’t want Godzilla running freely across the whole world. It can seem a slow Godzilla, but in fact is much more quick than USA and it’s sluggish KGF shuck. It can hit America at pleasure or make a easy rush against Africa and Mediterranean. You are giving tons of free IPCs in Pacific (aus, nzel, haw, NOs and probably also Alaska) and Africa, etc.

Just one thought on a house rule - has anyone place 1 UK inf on each of the UK islands from Borneo to the Solomons?

Maybe it would at least delay Japanese expansion. After all they have the best NO in the game - 3 territories with no resistance on? Even the Germans have to kill some Russian inf G1… and that’s still a giveaway!

@Funcioneta:

I like complexity that gives tech, and the variations it adds. If you get surprised by LRA or HBs, you didn’t planned a counter to those techs

I’ve heard this before and I think it’s a lousy arguement.

You think planning to handle a low outcome event like getting HB’s or LRA makes the game better?
Let’s say I roll 6 tech dice (just to help eliminate that variable somewhat)
I SHOULD get a tech break thru (odds are probably less then 100%, but I will let the statisticians point that out).
so then I might get LRAs or HB’s.  1/6 of either one.

So assuming my opponent CAN roll for 6 dice, I SHOULD plan for 16% of LRA?  or HBs? 
I guess maybe that is a personal preference, but I think the instant, surprise, game winning tech does not make the game better.

It’s such a low odds event, but you are saying that good players SHOULD plan for that…. I guess I am not seeing how 84% of the time, that planning is not needed, but that makes the game better?

Don’t get me wrong, I like tech, just not the instantaneous aspect of it:  SURPRISE, we got a 6 and then a 6 and now we win.

**YAHTZEE! **

I am sorry axis but you do not understand the tech game or the mindset of tech players. That is all there is to it.

I exclusively play tech games and there are many times in the PTO that I make my moves based on the assumption that my opponent will get LR regardless of the %chance because I do not need to loose these units.

Some techs are better than others and that also varies by nation. Most of the techs also require having units on the board and in position to benefit from them. There is very little Yahtzee I win to tech games.