Posts made by Spendo02

Always learned its invaluable to keep those TT around and positioned to threaten Calcutta to keep him cornered.

With the minor IC purchases, Yunnan is yours no later than J4.  You’re adding 6 Mech from the J3 purchase to the battle alone - not counting whatever survived the battles as you cornered China.

UK can of course make it more expensive to take by sending units to Yunnan, but it really makes no sense when Japan can skip right around via TT due to the minor in FIC being in the same SZ as Malaya which you should be able to take on J4.

Emptying Calcutta is a terrible idea to save Yunnan 9 times out of 10. Even staging on Burma is bad because - yes you can retake Calcutta, but with the amount of units piling up in Yunnan, Japan can just take a turn later - and possibly without planes being used at all because you’ll have 6 ARM to pair up with TAC which frees up FTR to reposition for your next advance.

Income from Calcutta falling is irrelevant to Japan, so running Japan I would prefer crushing UK units at Yunnan (closer to both IC) than having to wait an extra turn to send a kitchen sink at Calcutta to secure the VC.  I’ll let ARM and a few TAC finish off whatever you place after losing Yunnan.

J1 DOW, take FIC and Kwangtung.
J2 place Minor IC on both FIC and Kwangtung.
J3 Mechs
J4 Armor
J5 Attack if odds are good
J6 Attack with better odds and multiple ARM left to move to the Middle East.

Allies have a hard time dislodging those two IC and they provide support to turn off China while also being able to be in position rather quickly to supplement the siege on Calcutta.

I actually go for 3 minors with a J1 placement in Kiangsu as well - because the strategic ability to seal off China at Jehol is rather valuable with the Russians / US moving into Manchuria / Korea.

In the long run its cheaper to build on the mainland than try to protect SZ 6 from the US (or break a US blockade) and in addition, placing ships at FIC or Kwangtung really pushes back ANZAC / the US from the DEI and Flip.

Since discovering these placements via Grasshopper’s Japan walkthroughs, I have rarely had issue to SBR Calcutta.  Sometimes, I even leave Calcutta sieged without taking it right away because they cannot break out and simply leave SS to convoy what few IPC they can collect.

Sometimes its better to go for ANZAC’s throat or a decisive naval win in the Pacific because the Allies are racing to catch up and leave themselves exposed trying to protect / secure Calcutta.  Those minors will eventually produce enough ARM that you don’t even need to use your airpower to defeat them, so putting them to use to decisively secure the Pacific from the US Navy is worth the wait.

Like… who really cares about 5 IPC when you’re making 60+ and can put ANZAC on its heels because you immediately turn around and sink naval purchases and it only has 4 INF and two turns to purchase ARM to try to protect Sydney?

@simon33:

I use the one from the Med with an art only and leave the Indian one for claiming Sumatra, although a J1 DOW can cause a rethink to that. Perhaps go to Java instead and be reinforced by ANZAC? My normal opponent uses a J2 DOW.

I’m guessing you use the Med TT to take down the Ethopian troops.

I find having both TT off of Persia to be a more flexible option, so I bring an INF and ART from both Calcutta and Egypt to Persia on UK1’s NCM.

They can still get back to Cairo, can liberate Iraq, can address the Italians south of Cairo, or I can simply start a ferry back and forth to Calcutta if I build an IC in Persia.  Lots of options and makes me less predictable by my opponent (who always will J1 DOW).

@simon33:

I don’t reckon the transport is worth it. I used to do that but it is too easy for Japan to take the money islands back and also sink the transport. Unless you are thinking of doing something different with it?

I prefer sending Calcutta’s starting TT to Persia on UK1 with an INF and ART.
I liberate Iraq from its Pro-Axis ways on UK2.
I return to Calcutta with 4 victorious Brits on UK3, just before Japan closes off my harbor.

Theoretically you can get up 7 units to Calcutta before Japan closes off the harbor if you buy a TT, INF and ARM and place them in South Africa on UK1.

And, going forward London can start diverting income to a minor IC in Persia if you so chose to further create problems for the Japanese.

However, I have yet to find a strong strategy to stopping a KIF by Japan that places minor IC along the coast.  The Persia IC is more to fly FTR to Moscow than anything else.  And, it helps with Italy if they get too big for their britches.

@Young:

@Spendo02:

You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.

Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.

How to fix that?
1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids.  These are dangerous.
2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”.  It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.

The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion.  It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.

Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.

Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry.  Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.

Another way would be to increase the number of eligible territories for ICs (sorry… couldn’t help myself)

Producing units in Europe you mean?  What other possible territories could there be that don’t already have one?

In the Pacific the problem for the strength of the Allies - the US - is at best 3 turns from impacting the typical operations of Japan in the South Pacific, SE Asia and the DEI with its starting units alone.

By vacating Hawaii, the earliest the US can arrive with 4 units in any location in those regions is Turn 4 (with a J1 DOW).

In either situation, more units can arrive simply by increasing the capacity of ships the Allies use and forces the Axis to not only plan to conquer, but to hold territories from Allied threats.

I do think the US should be able to place the IPC value of its starting units in any ground unitary form they choose at any US complex they wish with no regard for the IC capacity.  In short, all those MEC could be reorganized into INF and ART.  I never understood why the US had so many MEC to start the game.  I see why some are valuable (Alaska), but the starting amount is a bit… well we could say it is overdone.

If you wanted to make a reasonable compromise, you could only allow AA from TT, but units carried on ships could NCM to reinforce newly taken territories.

My proposition would be:
AA can only be conducted by units carried on TT or from aircraft.
Units carried on ships with defensive values can only NCM from sea to land.
TT can carry up to 3 units, but no more than one non-infantry unit.
CV can carry any 2 ground units.
BB can carry up to 2 INF.
CR can carry up to 1 INF.

In this fashion, the US could load its starting 3 TT with up to 6 INF and 3 ART and can reinforce the units lost from an AA with units from CV, BB and CR which would enable a more… offensive island hopping battle.  Japan would be forced to seriously consider how exposed it wishes to leave its recently conquered islands if the US with no additional investment in ships could start the process of reclaiming islands with effectively strong AA landings.  This, all without changing the actual dynamic of combat values of units.

The same could be said for Europe as in my experience successful AA landings that hold the gained territory are subject to the ability of the UK to reinforce and repel the Axis response.  By the US being able to bring more INF as reinforcements, Germany cannot simply leave Europe exposed and rely on the Italians to repel all the early small landings.  Conversely, the Allies have to wait much longer to land a strong enough force to actually hold Normandy, which plays so much into a hyper aggressive German march towards Moscow, it forces the Red Turtle™ as the only viable option for survival for the Russians.

In effect, Germany may not be able to continue such a large stream of units towards Moscow so early because if the US spends on Naval on US1 in the Atlantic, the US could in theory land in Europe and hold it with the UK’s help and Italy would be unable to repel those landings alone.

In reality, the Allied LimFac in Europe is not combat values or starting units (in general), but in the logistical nightmare of having to spend 70 IPC to simply move 20 units across an ocean.  And, that is only the first wave which is in direct proximity of multiple Axis IC (both major and minor).  Due to the turnaround or additional IPC investment required for TT to continue a stream of reinforcements, those 20 units are stranded in Europe for the next 4 turns (excluding what the UK could ferry in).

Having the ability to transport more units to reinforce via warship allows the US to both defend the movement of its units across the oceans more effectively, and reinforce territories it does take to withstand counter attacks.

You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.

Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.

How to fix that?
1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids.  These are dangerous.
2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”.  It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.

The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion.  It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.

Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.

Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry.  Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.

Basically the easiest way to remember it:

You can always choose to ignore unescorted subs when moving ships (Edit:with a combat value) at sea.  Ship type does not matter.

When conducting combat, things change a bit depending on the presence of a destroyer or not.

Just be very very cognizant that a stack of bombers not strategically placed to be out of reach of the enemy could lead to disastrous results.

Getting carried away with all the offensiveness of the bombers and not strategically thinking about who can reach them where you land them is a common pitfall of this strategy.

@Young:

I’ve decided to start hatching a plan to go after Tokyo, basically the starting units in the Pacific will create a southern force that will go down to Queensland and wait there until the northern force builds and moves toward Tokyo. This should eventually force Japanese ships north and away from the money Islands where the southern American force will strike and take away income. This will only work if the Northern force is strong enough to threaten Tokyo, and not just strong enough to convoy, if Japan builds stacks of infantry on Tokyo before taking Calcutta, that would be a good sign of reverse economics for Japan, but it will cost the Americans a lot and they might possibly need a factory in Alaska.

US1 I almost exclusively by 3 CV.

Placed in the Pacific, I can land 8 FTR/TAC on them (start with 1 CV already).  Max production for US is 7 FTR, so it works out pretty well considering where I will send them (see below).

US2 I typically buy at least 2 BB and a SB.  I buy 3 BB if at war and a SB.

US3 I buy/fill TT

US4 I send US 1 - 3 purchases to SZ 7

US5 I take Korea or Japan depending on where I have better odds; obviously I go for Tokyo if I can take it - even with massive casualties Japan will be hard pressed to liberate its island capitol.

Japan in most incarnations of a KIF has a hard time addressing this type of pressure near Tokyo if it’s fleet goes anywhere south of Flip in the Pacific.  By waiting as long as I do, Japan is only going to have 1 purchase round to address the threat which makes it difficult to truly defend.

I also make every single DEI expensive for Japan to take (flying ANZAC/India aircraft) to slow down Japan’s economic expansion and stymie them trying to get economic gains from the DEI while also putting their navy in positions that require multiple turns to return to Tokyo.  Every loss of hardware, ground units or aircraft by Japan to achieve this end is, in my mind, fairly traded.

This also applies to the Burma Road.  I’ll continue to send ground units from India to force Japan to fight in a corner it wants to control.  It may have to trade aircraft to achieve this objective - which is again, part of the strategy.

It does leave Germany free to run around in Europe of course… but if I beat Japan before Moscow falls, I feel I’ve won with the US.

@teslas:

My guess is that this whole American fighters in Moscow thing, either going through the Atlantic or Pacific, is an alternative strategy that is non-optimal. Very possibly somewhat effective since you’ll be shaking up your opponent who isn’t used to it, but at the end of the day, non-optimal. But fun wins out over “perfect” play any day.

It sounds like a plausible curveball against someone who prefers to run a general script / perfect play to get them out of their comfort zone.

Nothing more rewarding than taking advantage of mistakes because someone had their strategy rattled.

@teslas:

For the far east route, Russia loses 15 IPCs of early game income (the fact that it’s early game matters, because that’s very flexible money, whereas midgame income is when Germany is already at your doorstep and your options are greatly reduced). That’s 5 inf that’s gone. Let’s just go with that for now to keep this simple. 5 hp, and 10 on defense.

And then you must keep some ruskies in the far east to keep Japan from screwing up the air base. Let’s assume this is at least 6, and be very nice about it. That bumps us up to 11 hp and 22 on defense that won’t be in Moscow by R6 or R7.

America would need to be sending in at least ~7 fighters to make that kind of investment worth it. More than 7, and it’s definitely been paid off… defensively. The loss of those 15 IPCs, however, also reduces any offensive moves Russia can make either early on or if Germany weakens its stack too much by sending units south toward the Caucasus and oil fields. But it’s not all bad, of course, those American fighters make bombing raids on Moscow much harder for Germany.

It’s a risky proposition, the eastern route, which is why I said in my previous post it would take a good bit of thought (and words) about all of the pros/cons. I would strongly prefer the Cyprus route as an Allied player, I believe.

So in your scenario the US needs to technically divert an entire round of income in FTR.  Based on timing to arrive on time, the relevance if those are starting FTR needs to be considered as well.

How long does this actually buy Moscow?  And more importantly, does it really matter once the Germans obtain the real strength - the economic gains in Russia?

For the record, I still prefer KJF over save Moscow.  Leave that to the Brits via a Persian IC.

Lots of variables with the Russian AB strategy, but how many US FTR would make up the difference by landing in Moscow to warrant the Communists placing the AB there?

I’m guessing 4-6 US FTR would be a serious game changer for the German attack on Moscow as soon as they arrive?

In subsequent turns, eventually the German income from forcing a Red Turtle on Moscow should return the odds back in their favor and even push far enough to cut off the intermediate landing point for those FTR.

Of course, Japan could swing from KIF to ANZAC and just let the Germans wait outside Moscow while they go for a Pacific victory with all the US resources going to FTR to reinforce a turtled Moscow.

Assuming a J1 DOW and full KIF / DEI strategy, if you buy:
3 CV on US1 and
3 BB + SB on US2
By US3 you can have a REALLY nice landing platform in SZ 7 to shuttle 6 FTR / Round starting on US4….  Japan’s not going to be happy having to allocate resources to Tokyo instead of Minor IC it has purchased to facilitate KIF faster.

Of course, you forsake ANY Atlantic presence and possibly Moscow, but if you build a minor IC in Persia on UK2, you can create some real problems for Japan’s KIF strategy and/or have a closer location for UK to help Moscow when the time comes.

Tell me again why you’re trading aircraft with the UK to achieve an SBR.  This is irrelevant if it is G1 or G2.

Like, what is the benefit of this? 
And, at what expense? 
Further, what do you aim to achieve by two rounds of SBR? 
Making that first INF cost 14 IPC? 
How many IPC units did you trade off to do that?

Never discount snake-eyes on the SBR either if you just send in your SB due to “Safe” UK skies.

For Sea Lion - my success has always been dictated by how many German Aircraft survive unscathed on G1.

I’d much rather 2-3 extra INF on UK and full starting TAC/SB than being short 1 TAC and 1 SB from trying to deny those INF via SBR.

@Charles:

Do you ever buy artillery early? It can make it hard for Germany to attack Baltic States Poland or Bessarabia.

I’ve never been a fan of trading multiple units (casualties during attack and remaining as defenders) for a 1 IPC or no value territory when Germany can come in over the top to ensure only a single round of combat when mine units defend.

To me, it makes it a rather dicey game (no pun intended).  I’d rather be statistically closer to the odds by rolling lots of dice than rolling only a few dice and coming away with nothing to show for it.

I would much rather wait for 18-24 ART pairing up with 60 or so INF for one big swing - and even that’s a bit… dangerous.  Again, it depends on the situation and the terrain.  If Germany is waiting for INF/MEC reinforcements for fodder or there’s a gap in those showing up for a turn I might swing with the stack just so my defending roll in Moscow gets into the ARM earlier.

@Charles:

A strategy employed by one of the players in my group is for Germany to strafe France 2 combat rounds and then let Italy finish it off. This really boosts Italy at the sacrifice of Germany.

Realistically the extra IPC for Italy just helps them take and potentially hold Egypt - something that comes into play much later in the game.

If you anticipate the US will KJF then it may be a very good play for the Germans to let the Italians get bigger early.  A 35-40 IPC Italy is a serious issue for the Allies trying to establish a presence in Europe.

Still - I prefer to keep the pressure on the Russians early and those IPC are invaluable for additional units making the long march to Moscow.  Egypt is irrelevant if Moscow holds.

@Charles:

The Eatsern Front is not a great theater. I wish the game would allow for more action in this area.

Well as it stands there are only two choices - counter attack and trade units that are 50% as strong (Roll @1 vs Roll @2) or just keep drawing Germany in and hope to dice them in the first two rounds when losses are the heaviest.

When I first started - Russia was much more fun to play as or against because I hadn’t developed a min/max script that I now employ.  Now - I just buy 10 INF + 1 ARM for the first 2-3 rounds and retreat every starting unit.  If Germany looks thin for whatever reason, I’ll buy 8 ART and 1 INF the final two rounds so the Germans have to seriously consider if standing next to Moscow is a good idea or not.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t - typically it depends how much Germany is relying on Air Power to sack Moscow.

Having 60 INF and 24 ART on Moscow is something to seriously consider for the Germans.  Even a successful strafe could buy Moscow multiple turns.

As I’ve been working on my Allied strategery (yes, spelled intentionally) in the Pacific - I’ve found that those Russian INF are a great stack to land US Bombers on once Germany DOW on Russia.  The lost NO of no Allied units doesn’t really cost Moscow all that much by the time Germany is in position to attack Moscow.

I’ve played the standard J1 DOW KIF with Japan that is successful 99% of the time for me and I’ve found the defensiveness of those Russian INF invaluable to the US sending a large stack of SB.

In my two (so far) run throughs I’ve been able to take Tokyo with the US the same round that Calcutta falls.  This includes 11+ INF and 4+ FTR on Tokyo.  The Russian stack makes those SB untouchable for Japan and have become a lynchpin strategy for the US to claim Korea and Tokyo.

I usually send the Far East back to Moscow but without any punching power or delaying the German advance, they don’t normally mean much with Germany when it has a stack of 8-10 ARM and its Black Sky Air Force to shut down any hope of reclaiming Moscow by those units.

I’m starting to lean towards keeping those Russian INF in the East as I develop the US KJF strategery.

The Red Turtle ™ is difficult to break quickly, so pivot from the mid game victory most Axis scripts are designed for to the long play victory of strangling Russia and stymieing the Allies with your economic growth.

Simply let them play turtle while you eat up the free IPC from Russia.  Eventually you’ll have to sack their capitol, but you can basically neutralize them until you’re ready to do so after you’ve secured Europe from the eventual Allied landing parties.

Brace yourself for an epic 10-12+ round game at that point.  Its really a rather boring game when the Red Turtle is employed.  Necessary for the Allies, but boring none the less.