J1 latest trend: SZ52 Skipping

[Advosan]

If UK1 doesn 't have to counter AES (1/20 times the UK DD will prove too tought for the BB to crack ) a FIC amphibious assault, an IIC, 3 Russians in Buratya+fgt to Khazak and a US-Pac can knock Japan out of the game quickly enough for the Allies to turn to Europe. But the Allies must be bold and lucky.

By J3 Japan will have to retreat its fleet to SZ60 or 61 and spend everything to catch up with the US navy build-up. But if J trannies leaving SZ36 means the fall of FIC (to UK or russian armor), that means Japan will diminish to 18 IPC by J5 and to 9 IPC by J6.

The question remains essentially the same though: Can Russia stand alone for 5 rounds?
I think it barely can (R1-2 trade Kar-Bel-Ukr, R3 trade Bel-Ukr, R4 garisson WR trade Ukr, R5 garisson WR, UK5 the IIC can send units to Caucasus). Still, if G1 fails AES a KGF can be so much more efficient.

[Granada]

I have not been playing for quite some time, hence I can hardly say what are the latest trends. All I know is that I have won several games for Allies with a strategy of US going full speed after Japan, while UK and Russia where dealing with Germany and slightly pushing japans in asia just no to let them have some cheap gains. Lately I have used the Pacific strategy practically always when I saw japan screwing something R1. If you ask me whether I consider skipping Pearl a case of "screwing something", my intituitive answer would be yes, even if the price was the inf stack on bury, but since I know Hobbes is using this move too, I am gladly willing to admit I might be just wrong on this first I would have to see more evidence.

There are two possible approaches: 1. US IC on sinkiang R1 and UK IC on India R2, the rest to the naval builds with US. This is only wise if japan cannot attack sinkiang R2 of course. 2. US combined naval and air build, based an ACs figs, some submarines and bombers, this buy gives you best punch/count/skew ratio per your money and allows you to threaten japanese ships very early.

The integral part of both strategies is that UK manages to hold Africa, since UK has the most vital role as the balancing factor that on one hand assists russia to withstand the pressure on the other hand adds this tiny bit that helps to tip the ballance to the allies just in time in the Asia/Pacific. For this it needs the africa ipcs and deny them to the Germans.

Maybe it is just my ignorance but based on my exprience I would say this startegy is easier and safer way to win than classic KGF unless Japan does everything right on R1.

[Hobbes]

Japan is definitely having more worries lately.

Stacking up Buryatia with the Russians seems to have become a popular option and there's only 3 options to deal with it: leave to the Russians, keep some forces back on Manchuria or go after it, at the expense of SZ52 or other attacks. I strongly dislike the first option because it slows down Japan on Asia while it allows Russia to get 34 IPC on their 2nd round.

Skipping SZ52 has come up a few times. It may look attractive for the US to go Pacific but it can be very deceiving. The Japanese fleet will be left intact, the Russians just lost their backdoor and most likely the Germans are getting ready to pounce on Russia, which is the reason why I usually take out the Buryatia stack, to increase Russia's woes.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

This thread inspired me to try something new. I don't ignore 52 but go Pearl Light - sub, cruiser, plane, bomber, but I attacked Bury with 3 inf, tank, battleship hit and Fig, 2 figs if I can afford to send it. Tried it twice and I took it both times.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

If there is a brit fighter on that russian stack, then with only 2 ��� fighters you lose 70% of the time as ���.  No brit fighter then Bry gets attacked every time!

[Hobbes]

If there is a brit fighter on that russian stack, then with only 2 ��� fighters you lose 70% of the time as ���.  No brit fighter then Bry gets attacked every time!

But if there's the Brit fighter then Egypt most likely was not retaken by the UK, unless the Brits decide to use the bomber and sacrifice it to the Germans on the next turn, or attack it only with 3 inf and the cruiser shot... risky.

Or, if there's no Buryatia stack, then the Japanese can move their starting transport south and position it to hit India/Egypt on round 2. It's really a matter of where you want to put the speed bump for Japan - it will be squashed but the point is to gain time.


 

[MrMalachiCrunch]

That's probably why I never see the Bry stack with Brit fighter.  Does that occur often in TripleA?

[Col.Stauffenberg]

That's probably why I never see the Bry stack with Brit fighter.  Does that occur often in TripleA?

You can land a US fighter there. I'd never do it, but it's more expendable than a Uk one.

[Hobbes]

That's probably why I never see the Bry stack with Brit fighter.  Does that occur often in TripleA?

You can land a US fighter there. I'd never do it, but it's more expendable than a Uk one.

If there's still any stack left to land... 

[Advosan]

If there is a brit fighter on that russian stack, then with only 2 ��� fighters you lose 70% of the time as ���.  No brit fighter then Bry gets attacked every time!

But if there's the Brit fighter then Egypt most likely was not retaken by the UK, unless the Brits decide to use the bomber and sacrifice it to the Germans on the next turn, or attack it only with 3 inf and the cruiser shot... risky.

Or, if there's no Buryatia stack, then the Japanese can move their starting transport south and position it to hit India/Egypt on round 2. It's really a matter of where you want to put the speed bump for Japan - it will be squashed but the point is to gain time.

If G1 takes AES with only one arm, 3 UK inf plus the CC shot is more than enough, especially in LL, but I would also go for it in Dice. The problem of course is than Russia doesn t know in R1 with how many units is Germany going to take AES...
There is one way to ensure that G1 will attack AES with 2 inf, art,arm, ftr, bmb and still take it with just one arm: R1 kill Ukraine and land a ftr in AES. But can Russia afford not to use a ftr in R1 attacks and risk not having it around altogether in R2? Bear in mind, we always play SZ16 closed.
So, imho, a KJF initializes at R1 with Russia stacking Buratya, moving 1-2 inf in Persia (for a R2 counter India) and landing ftr in AES, UK1 IC India (since the BB survives), landing ftr in Buratya, leaving 2 inf and AA in India and hoping for J1 to screw something up-China Buratya or India. Japan will be in trouble and will skip India (R2 will retake it anyway), SZ34 and SZ52 and won t be able for a J2 Xinyang attack, that allows for a US1 XIC build, and still risk losing in both China and Buratya.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Well we weren't specifically talking about a KJF, but that seems solid.  I've never experienced a KJF.

This might seem a be a bit off topic  but hang with me.

I know the standard build for Germany G1 is the bomber it seems, combine this with fortress europe tactics, typical opening german moves and keep as much as the german air force able to hit the atlantic.  Unless the Norwegian gambit succeeds Sz2 is attacked so no bomber in Africa and typical attack against Egy, maybe bringing the tank rather than Art to slightly tip the surviving german force to elicit a brit counter attack, 2 surviving german tanks on G2 in Egy is bad news I think.  If KJF requires/implies no Egy counter attack the bonus axis.
 
From my understanding, this bomber is to:
A) delay the Atlantic allied fleet build by a turn primarily in the early rounds and
B) to have 2 bombers available for the Bel, Ukr and Wru  triangle that is unreachable by fighters in WEu.

How correct are these premises, what am I missing, and what negative implications are there for no bomber build?

If Germany does a 5 Inf, 5 Tank build, combine this with ��� fighters in FIC at the end of J1 and/or fighters than reach Ukr.

The idea is then for the Germans to rush Ukr on G2 and re-inforce it with the ��� fighters.  If Russia is not focused on Germany and Germany is not feeling the heat of the allies right away, such that that can muster by Round 2-3 in the Atlantic then Germany is set to move in force to WRu on Ger 4-5.  The japs can land fighters in WRu to add the required defense until the Germans need to pull out then of course ��� air units go to WEu or to Cau as the Russians now must choose to defend Cau or Rus.  By this time ��� tanks and a few infantry should be able to reinforce the Germans in Cau.

Lots of what-ifs and if the Russians stay home you might not get that opening.  It seems to work for me, plans always do until they don't!

[Advosan]

We are indeed drifting offtopic.Imo a G1 bmb is a must,but only if Germany is absolutely sure tο be able to trade K-B-U without exposing its armor to a counter.And we all know a G1 3inf-art-3arm-bmb buy means that Russia can make a serious R2-3 claim on Ukr.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Well, with fighters in WEu, you have ample air power for 'K'.  I find I can sneak off 1 maybe 2 fighters on G2 and have them land in EEu or Blk if I need a plane for Bel or Ukr and the bomber is already engaged elsewhere. If the allies build navy or don't after G1 you probably don't need all 4 or 5 surviving german fighters in WEu do you?  If they build navy they did so knowing they can survive the airforce as it is, so 1 less is meaningless.  Yeah by G3 it's getting a bit hot so yeah, 2 bombers usable for Bel and Ukr trades is good.

How does building or not building that bomber G1 affect allied fleet purchases/moves?  I like the 5 tanks/5 inf build on G1, but I am obviously missing something.

[Advosan]

Buying a G1 bmb and landing 3 ftr in WE means G2 can sink easily the merged SZ8 fleet at the expense of its ftr, which is totally worth it at this point of the game.
The Allies will have to (partially) merge in SZ2, which is keeping the Americans out of the Atlantic and makes the defence of Norway easy for Germany, something that can have dire consequences for Karelia.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I see the numbers with a 2 sub, 2 bomber, 3 ftr attack against the best the allies can do in Sz8.

Is this an 'automatic' play, that is when Germany has less that that, automatically the Brits build a CV+2 DD in Sz8 and the americans/brits supply 2 fighters and cruiser?

I'm not sure I follow the partial merge in Sz2, is this due to air threat from Japanese air in WEu?   What turn/build sequence does that involve?

I would see either (a brit navy build in Sz8 with low German threat) or (a bomber and maybe something else but no navy build on UK1 and a large US fleet build on US1 then a round 2 merge in Sz8 with a UK2 navy build).  This is why for my circle, the faster japanese air gets into Europe, the worse for England.

But for me, even an early brit navy build in Sz8 round 1 doesn't bother me much.  Nwy is always going to fall by Us4.  Us fleet build Us1>Sz8 US2>Sz12 Us3>Sz6 Us4 and capture of Nwy for possible US IC if and when Germany gets pinned down enough.

I like 5 German tanks on G1, no doubt the bomber build does slow down the allied fleet for 1 turn.  The question: is that allied slow down worth more than Germany being able to lean forward quickly on G2 especially if ��� fighters are ready to land where Germany wants to stack.  Works great until Brit land units are in the European theater anyways.