Hi everyone!

I am very curious to know what you all buy the first two round. I understand that this depends sometimes on what is happening on the board (especially with Italy and UK), so you can give several options…

This is what I buy (we play without aireal bombardments). Let’s say Germany DOW Russia in G2 and Japan DOW in J3:

G1 = carrier + 2 subs (I save 2, so I CAN buy an extra transport in R2)
G2 = 10 artillery + Mech Inf and tanks…

R1 = 7 artillery + 3 infantry
R2 = 4 artillery + 7 infantry

J1 = Minor IC + 2 transports
J2 = 3 Mech Inf + 2 destroyers + 2 subs

US1 = 3 carriers (Pacific)
US2 = 4 destroyers + 4 subs (Pacific)

UK1 = 6 inf + fighter
UK2 = carrier + destroyer + sub + ?

ANZAC1 = sub or transport
ANZAC2 = carrier

India1 = 2 mech inf + 3 inf
India2 = 2 mech inf + 4 inf

Italy1 = sub
Italy2 = sub + ???

(You can leave China out).

Thoughts?

What everyone’s safe Russia strategy? Let’s say Germany fakes Sea Lion and goes for Russia in G3, how do you defend Russia as allies?

I usually build IC’s with Britain in the Middle East, but these get blocked via the Caucasus after G6/G7 or a little later. The US is mostly occupied in Asia, but sends in her transports to liberate Franse together with the UK, perhaps US5/US6. Than we have a stand-off in Europe and the game is usually decided in Asia where Japan can take India (and win the game) or loses the DEI, and the game…

After UK6 we fly our UK airforce to Moscow to hold off the Germans. Russia takes Iraq and the Italian African possessions to gain income/bonus: 19 IPC total bonus. It depends on Japan how much Russia keeps in the east…

Any thoughts on a strategy to defend Moscow, or do you concentrate on other targets as Allies?

Thank you!

Ik woon in Amersfoort en een vriend van me in Alkmaar. Wij spelen vaak via Triple A…

@JDOW:

I am very much convinced that USA focussing on reinforcing Russia is a bad idea because it is totally ineffient.

All what Japan has do it is to more or less ignore the threat. Either just block Amur/Korea which it will easily be capable of or even concede korea/Manchuria temporarily.

In the meantime Japan will just easily bash India because it has not to worry about DEI or losing transports. USA has way more important jobs to do than focussing on sending units to eastern Russia.

I agree. I think the UK should help Russia via the Middle East, and the US should focus on the DEI…

Yes, almost all Japanese landforces are gone after the battle (accept for two mech and 1 inf).

Japan cannot take all of the DEI because of the attack, in J4 Japan takes all of the DEI, but again by taking landunits away from China.

There are no Russian mech’s in China, or even on their way to China. Do you always use mechs as a Russian player, to help China? We don’t… we are always trying to stall the Germans at least one vital round…

The US fleet is nog strong enough to press forward (Japan has bought a carrier and a sub).

Yes landunits were needed to attack Yunnan which were otherwise used to take the DEI.

Or Japan can just wait another turn en put pressure on India with its transports. That way the British can either retreat or lose India… The Japanese army could split in two: one army could take the rest of China and perhaps a few Russian territories, the other army can hold FIC with fighter support against the Brits and eventually beat the combined allied army in Yunnan…

I don’t think attacking a well-defended Yunnan is a good idea in J3.

Well in the current game, Japan is far from taking India and India has extra IPC from taking a few DEI islands. India has about 16 units on land after the attack (UK3, Japan DOW on J3). So three transports will not be enough, not nearly enough…

As for China, the Chinese still have 6 units, including the fighter…

Japan has only one unit next to Yunnan (which is held by 4 UK units) and 3 mech’s on Anhwe. And some 15 units to hold of the Russian army in Amur…

Even though you cannot take the DEI with Japan in J3? And there are no Russian units involved.

I have played a few games as axis and as allies during which the allies stacked Yunnan (R1 and R2) to prevent Japan from taking it in round 3…

Let’s say Japan does his job and has about 20 landunits plus most of it’s airforce in range in J3. Should they attack if they would lose all groundunits en 2-3 fighters? Because of overwhelming Japanese firepower the allies lose about 8-10 units more, including all it’s UK-Indian airforce and a ANZAC fighter.

After that the allies keep their territory and are able to build up it’s force faster, but the Japanese have a smaller allied army to defeat on land. The downside of this allied strategy is that the US will not come into the war until US4 (after collect income in US3) if Japan leaves the Filipines alone…

1. Can Japan afford this, I mean losing almost all groundunits in China and a few planes? What are your thoughts on that?

2. Should the allies always try to stack Yunnan en seek a all-out battle (Kantai Kessen in Japanese or Kesselschlacht in German) like that?

Thank you!

Well usually the Japanese forces converge to Yunnan, and maybe one or two units in the north.

Would you trade say 22 Japanese groundunits and 3 aircraft to 35 allied units, including the Indian airforce?

Thank you all for the insight!

And should the UK try to lure Japan into a big battle in Yunnan on J3? The Chinese and UK plus ANZAC can put up to 35 units on Yunnan in round 2. Japan can either attack and lose all landforces and some fighters or wait and walk to the north of China, but the Birma road will be open that way…

The downside is that Japan, if it DOW’s on J3 can leave the Americans out of the war for another round.

What are your thoughts on this?