<snip>. On another note I am laughing at these posts a little because when the game came out so many shouting for Alpha 3 were saying Germany could take London and still have plenty of money to fend off the Russians. What Happened?
They found out that while they could fend off the Russians, they didn't stand much chance against a combined Pac/EU USA economy dumped into one side of the board on top of it.
Also, fending off the Russians =\= winning the game. Eventually the Russians will hold the German/Italians at bay long enough for America to return from destroying Japan and add that little oomph required to finish off Germany.
Just curious, If I see America spending lets say 6-7 turns building and acting in the Pacific, what stops a German player, with 8-10 transports having taken London on turn 4 from looking at a stacked Russia and an empty E. USA from simply using plunder to plop down a larger fleet turn 5, move to Gibratar turn 6, and seize either CUS or EUS on turn 7....Russia is harder to take then the EUSA with a Pacific first approach. I've done it. Most US players are not counting on a German fleet redeployed off of Gibraltar if they have their focus on Japan.
If you secure EUSA(Washington), then grab Ontario for the 8th city win, you already have London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome and Egypt if the drive is on Japan, leaving Russia out of the game completely if they refuse to surrender when you seize the US.
I guess I'm just asking if anyone has taken EUSA in the 100percent Japan strategies I have heard about? It should be a softer target then 2/3 of the Russian Victory Cities. Is this crazy?Subtle Alternative:
On turn 4, send one transport to seize Iceland with 1 infantry (to prevent air landings they will think), the others grab London. Stack additional Germans on Belgium or Normandy. Be sure you take London from sz 110. Then on turn 5 move 8-10 transports and 16-20 land units to Iceland, drop a naval base there and sack Ontario via sz 120 (3 sz from Iceland) on turn 6 for your 8th city if you have grabbed
Stalingrad (Italy) by then.
Two things for the US to consider, it is assumed this is used when they are going 100 percent Pacific:
1:On turn 4, you see London fall and a lone Transport with 1 infantry in Iceland. Do you see this as an Ontario threat or EUSA threat? Most honest players will say no. Maybe you build a sub and move an infantry into Quebec to protect it, maybe not...you are focused on Japan and this is turn 4, your first chance to declare war.
2:On turn4, do you honestly expect Germany to move to Iceland with its whole fleet. At the very least, you might suspect the Gibraltar move, but not Iceland. Especially with a Naval base that does not yet exist. Maybe you build some ships on the east coast, to get a head start against a possible Gibraltar move. But honestly, you are not likely to even think of Ontario as it has probably never falling in a single game you have played while playing the US.
Riddle me this, lets say the US see's the Gibraltar as a likely threat and goes navy....How many US players going Japan first stack land units in EUSA? Probably none if they are going navy on the east coast...maybe some for a few transports....when you drop off 20 units in Ontario and some of the tanks in Alberta, you now have to protect the WUSA, CUSA, and EUSA from a turn 7 capture if the game is not over.
Is this idea also far fetched? Or is it a valid VC win? I know, where will Russia be with all this effort going away from them....4 turns of building, then Londons plunder and say 2 turns before Russia is near Germany, you will be fine holding Berlin...Maybe you are required to liberate Warsaw, maybe not. Something else to consider.