Germany Taking India - Go for Pacific Win?

@GEN-MANSTEIN oh I thought you had a rule set. I didnt know you meant you made an entire game. LOL. Nice

There is no way to hold India if Japan plays a capture Calcutta at all cost opening strategy. It will fall and Japan will get a bit more income. Meanwhile, they will not be able to control China and will be missing out on big income from Pacific islands. Celebrate if they are putting a huge fleet in SZ39 because ANZAC + China will have huge income for the foreseeable future.

@simon33:

UK1, all landing on it does is add 1-2inf to the defenders and gains 2IPC but costs a transport and 1-2inf. If Germany has activated Bulgaria, that’s 5 inf who will hit it next turn, with planes no doubt. If Germany has left Bulgaria for Italy? Perhaps, but you have to be prepared to fly in a crap load of planes to try to hold it for I2.

I typically do not take Greece in early game, unless I am doing Taranto. If I am doing Taranto, then Greece provides a place that planes from the UK carrier can land. Otherwise, as soon as you take a hit on the carrier the Axis can retreat and kill your planes for free. On the other hand, if the Axis goes light your planes can survive and bolster your Greek defense, and if the Axis does not attack Greece your planes survive.

That being said, taking Greece while it is subject to Axis counterattack does put any infantry used in the counterattack five whole turns away from Moscow. Weakening the attack on Moscow by five German infantry may indeed be worth taking Greece on UK1 and losing eight IPCs (minus any kills that you get on the attacking Axis forces). That of course presumes that Germany activates Bulgaria on G1. On average, you should kill about 1.6 attacking infantry with those Greek forces, which would mean you lose between two and three IPCs in the process but gain Moscow an extra turn of life if Bulgaria was activated with German forces. It’s a trade I would make if I thought it would kill the Moscow attack because of a bad G1 build…

Also, I question sitting there in Greece and waiting for a counterattack if Italy activated Bulgaria – in that case, if you have air support, it would be better to attack the Italian forces instead of waiting to be attacked. It slows Italy down and if your attack is very successful might force Germany to divert forces away from the Moscow attack to prevent an sore from becoming an oozing wound in its southern flank. Killing an Italian tank on your terms could be very helpful for Russia.

A big concern with taking Greece is that it forces you to use the Egyptian transport to not attack Tobruk and also not reinforce Egypt. This could have consequences that you did not intend.

Marsh

I play a more balanced game of 60/40 leaning to teh Atlantic early on and then switching to the Pacific at around turn 6-7.  U.S. bombers to the UK to help pound German factories and loaded transports, destroyers and cruisers to Gibraltor.  Your there in one move from the East Coast and from there can hit Norway, Normandy, Gibraltor, Morocco, or Italy.  If the Italy has taken Gibraltor…take it back and open up the Med.  If the UK is strugling in North Africa, Help them out.  How does this Contain Germany?  The opening of the Med means the usually less protected souther Europe or Balkens are easier to take and advance right at the heart of Germanyand can redirect their efforts to give the Soviets a chance to fight back. Once you get a series of convoys going back and forth between Gibraltor and the East Coast and the Med has been opened, you can hit the Germans in so many places that they will have to expend Soviet bound resources in Western Europe.  They can’t fight in every direction.  Fighters and bombers from Gibraltor (add an airbase) and London can help defend against dark skies and also activate green skies and we in the midwest know what green skies mean.

I see what you guys are saying and I agree. I’ve been kicking around the idea to replace the $5 NO for Japanese control of Borneo, Celebes, Java and Sumatra with the following:

$5 for Japanese control of Okinawa, Formosa, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Palau, Caroline Islands and Marshall Islands. This occurs when Japan is at war with the Western Allies. So if UK and/or ANZAC declare war on Japan, with USA still neutral, then Japan will collect this NO.
I’ve also modified the $5 NO for Japanese control of Midway, Wake, Guam, Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands. I changed it to $1 for control of each island.

I also removed the US NO of $10 for US control of Eastern US, Central US and Western US because I think that falls in the same category as the DEI NO. The continental US is worth $42 to the US all together, has all their main manufacturing plants and includes two Victory Cities, one of which is their capital. That’s more than enough incentive to not lose any of those three territories. However, I didn’t want to just take away US NO money, so I replaced it with the following:

$1 each for Allied control of the following: Midway, Wake Island, Guam, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa. This occurs when US is at war with Japan.

So you see, there is still the possibility for the US to make the full $10 in NO money, plus 3 of the Japanese Islands are worth $1 which will be an extra bonus. Also, since 3 of the islands are already US owned, the US can still collect $3 when at war with Japan but before their offensive gets moving.
I thought that might do something to get a little more action in these valueless islands. I wonder if I ought to change Japan’s because once the US is in the war, Japan’s NO is really easy to disrupt because the Marshall Islands are close to the US and they are unguarded. Do you think that I should remove the Marshalls from Japan’s NO?

@Cmdr:

Other that that, I am wondering what the point is on taking India with Germany.  Other than the “cool…” factor of course.

I didn’t see the time frame that Germany intends to take India, but I would surmise that its a ploy to allow Japan to fry other fish in the Pacific for an Axis win in the Pacific?

Although if the German Air Force is anywhere other than in Europe I’d presume the US would make full investments into the Pacific to prevent the Axis win in the Pacific.

If you try it out, you’ll see that the U.K. can’t sufficiently reinforce France, even with the additional 6 French troops, from having Germany crush it on round 2.  Even if every available plane is landed there, and the strafe leaves 2 tanks plus the fighter, it’s impossible to hold.  So all that landing planes accomplishes is wiping out the British airforce (and keeping France from falling to Italy).  The payoff isn’t worth it.

The biggest downsides I can imagine are that (1) it is much more difficult to hold off serious landings at Normandy by the US and/or UK.  Italy then has to protect Western Europe and the Med–although with Germany taking S France, they can dump ships in the Med as well if it comes to that (subs backed up by planes would be cheap).  And (2) delaying the war on the Pacific side until round 3 (which would make this work much better at times, depending on the US builds) means that UK Pacific can shuttle some troops over.

The really nice thing about this strategy is that it’s more efficient to have Italy be the 1 force in the Med, and not have to worry about building enough ships off the S France factory right away to protect them from UK planes.

I think it’s going to be the standard opening in our play group for the foreseeable future.

The counter someone mentioned above about making sure to buy troops in S Africa–either mechs, or infantry/artillery to go with transports, in combination with some shuttling from India, is probably the safe response.

Grover and I just started another game, with me being the Axis, and I’ve got to say I’m enjoying the big Italian boost.

@jim010:

For defensive power for my money, and allows for fht swapping at sea.

That’s a pretty big deal right there.