@barnee Thank you very much Barnee. This is the first time this situation has come up, so we wanted to do it right.
Transports vs Factories
-
Got it. Seems like its never come up except in schemes.
-
One other Chinese rule is that say the Japanese build a naval and/or air base on an original Chinese territory (Chinese emblem on it). We will use Kwangsi (adjacent to sz36) as an example because Japan often times will build an air base/naval base on Kwangsi to extend the range of ships and air units (to amphib India). If Kwangsi is liberated the base(s) stays on the map and the allies can then use these bases as long as they are functional (have not been bombed out w/SBR). So a Chinese air base would extend the range of allied air units and the flying tiger +1, and allow the other allies to scramble to the sea (flying tiger can’t scramble because it can’t leave the mainland). A Chinese naval base would extend allied ships +1 in movement and be able to repair ships there as well (of course China can’t build ships). However China is not allowed to repair its newly acquired bases, so if they are SBR’d and non functional then they can’t be used or fixed by the allies. In the event that the Japanese recapture’s one of these bases Japan could repair and use it again (kinda weird LOL).
-
China can’t repair bases because it can only spend its IPCs on infantry and artillery. Interesting.
Italy could build a minor in egypt if they were going well enough.
Umm, Italy shouldn’t be holding Egypt.
Thinking about attacking norway around turn 4-5. Then build factory there. British can land troops and planes to defend it. Follow it with factory in finland. Pump out tanks to punch germans out of leningrad.
On the other side of the world running us troops across from alaska to korea to set up a factory there . The 18 russians walk in to defend. Plus half a dozen us fighters. This should help out chinese and brits.
I like the USA on Norway and I target US3 to achieve it. Germany can probably dislodge the first landing but needs to take some focus off USSR to do so. I suppose UK help might allow USA to hold it but they usually don’t have that much money in games I’m playing and normally the RAF is non existent or near to it on London because I like scrambles and Taranto. Hmm, perhaps UK should prioritise building planes UK2 rather than a Mid East IC with this strategy.
I don’t like the idea of landing USA on Soviet Far East and walking across to Korea. Very slow, minimum impact. US should be focusing on neutralising or sinking the IJN. Once that’s gone it is very difficult for Japan to hold its income. If you can amphibiously hit Korea and reinforce with USSR, that’s a pretty good plan but doesn’t stop Japan, only slows them down a little bit.
-
Well, the best way for Japan to get troops on the ground in South East Asia is minor factories. Japan can get units into Northern China from SZ6 from Japan. Every turn then can dump X troops (MAX 10 troops) from Japan into Manchuria for free as long as you have the TRS lift capacity.
The USA on the other hand really has no choice but to use TRS to move troops across the globe, thus it requires a plan.
Here are the 3 most common plans the USA comes up with.
#1 The GHG Southern France TRS shuck plan of attack.
Floating Bridge Plan of Attack
So, this is how that one works. USA has 5 TRS on East Coast USA, 5 TRS in SZ91 and 5 TRS in SZ93 off the coast of France. You can then “Shuck” 5 Inf + 5 “other units” every single turn into S. France. It is the only place on the map the USA can do this particular plan of attack.
So SZ101 moves 10 Troops to SZ91 and drops off. Next turn you build 10 units in Eastern USA. Following turn you move the 10 troops from Gibraltar from SZ93 to Southern France and the next 10 units move from SZ101 to SZ91…Rinse and repeat forever. Always bringing 10 units every turn into Europe.
It is very effective and also gives you some flex if you so desire to pivot from SZ91 to Oslo or Rome. SZ91 is the most powerful SZ in the game, USE IT.
#2 the Norway option
So we have 3 TRS in E. USA, 3TRS in Iceland to shuck back and forth. Now we have 3 TRS in Iceland and 3 TRS in SZ125 off the coast of Norway. So it is a 12 TRS “shuck” to move 3 INF + 3 other units. It requires 2 turns to prime this shuck. Now the nice thing is once you take Norway you can put a minor on it, keep shucking 6 units + the 3 build units from the minor.
IMO the downfall of the Norway plan of attack is that it is not a direct attack on Germany and in essence they can ignore it for a few turns and focus on beefing up Russia in the north to contain it.
NOTE: You can go to SZ91 instead of Iceland but it does require you to build a port in Norway to perform this “shuck” and a delay of one turn to build the port.
#3 the Spanish Beach Head
The easiest way to get troops on the ground in W. Europe but is does break the neutrals. � Real simple, 5 TRS in SZ91 and 5TRS in SZ 101, shuck 10 units into Spain every turn + the minor factory you can build in Spain.
This is actually more powerful than the GHG option #1 and it includes the UK into the plan. The UK can shuck from SZ109 to SZ104 every turn and drop up to 10 units a turn from London onto Spain on a single move shuck.
So, in theory the USA + UK could drop 30 INF in one turn on Spain. 10 INF from E.USA, 10 INF from C.USA and 10 INF from England. And do that every turn if the Axis cannot retake Spain, plus the three units USA builds on the Factory.
When it comes to the Pacific the plans of attack are based on the same principals.
W. USA to Hawaii, Hawaii to Caroline or Queensland. Queensland/Caroline to Philippines. So it is a 3 leg shuck. So lets plan on 3 TRS shucking 6 units a turn. You would need 18 TRS to fill the shuck supply line.
-
The whole thing I am trying to do with US is about the Speed of getting troops to the front lines.
That’s why we have been playing around with the Northern route to SFE. The southern route to say Phillipines requires 18 transports to get 6 units into the combat zone. The northern route requires only 3 and can be active T2.
The T2 push to SFE also threatens an amphibious assault on Japan on T3. This would have
1 STR
6 FTR on 3CV
1 BB
2 CG
2 INF
2 MEC
1 TANKThis means that Japan has to react or they will be in big problems. If Japan DOW on T1 you can add in an extra MEC and 2 INF.
I cant see an 18 TRN convoy working before T7-8 at the latest. I would rather build Tanks Infantry and planes with all that cash
I am happy to let Japan grab those 30 if it means I can get US boots on the ground. ANZ and UK will be able to regrab at least one of those islands which will cost Japan 9.
On the Euro side all those ideas are excellent.
-
My problem with shucking guys to Southern France is that 10 units will never survive a counter attack from the Northern Italians and whatever Germans are in Paris or fast movers in W.Ger. I prefer a shuck to Normandy. It takes 1 extra step but is far less likely to be successfully countered. Plus, by the time US lands there UK should be able to have at least 2 TTs worth of men to reinforce and maybe some planes. Southern France is virtually impossible to reinforce an initial US landing with UK units.
-
My problem with shucking guys to Southern France is that 10 units will never survive a counter attack from the Northern Italians and whatever Germans are in Paris or fast movers in W.Ger. I prefer a shuck to Normandy. It takes 1 extra step but is far less likely to be successfully countered. Plus, by the time US lands there UK should be able to have at least 2 TTs worth of men to reinforce and maybe some planes. Southern France is virtually impossible to reinforce an initial US landing with UK units.
Hmm, if Germany is trading 2IPCs for 3IPCs of USA’s, I don’t think Germany would come off that trade very well. Depends on how USSR are doing of course.
I think the real problem with the floating bridge is that it doesn’t really contain Japan.
-
I think the real problem with the floating bridge is that it doesn’t really contain Japan.
Well that is true because the Pacific war is at first a naval war. Europe is not like that and Navy does not play a big role besides protecting TRS to shuck troops onto the mainland.
Over in the Pacific you have to get rid of the IJN first and foremost. The land units are just there to take advantage of openings to take Islands and move closer to the main land. Considering how most players play Japan by never reinforcing any of the islands with any size of force. The USA can have 3TRS with 6 guys and do some serious IPC harm on Japan and their islands. It does not require a huge TRS fleet in the Pacific until late game.
Now lets look at the 18 TRS shuck to the Philippines. So you are sending 12 troops a turn to Manila. So, you wait one turn, now you have 12 TRS sitting in Manila with 24 Units, and you can threaten the entire mainland of China, from Singapore to Tokyo. Since you broke the shuck you then have 2 turns later another 12 units come from Hawaii to reinforce.
IMO the fastest way to neutralize Japan is to kill their IPC economy and that is found in the South Pacific and the coast of China. I understand the idea of going north but I do not think that is the best way to take down Japan. Taking Korea and all that stuff is end game moves for the USA to finally knock out Japan on their main island.
-
I think the real problem with the floating bridge is that it doesn’t really contain Japan.
Well that is true because the Pacific war is at first a naval war. Europe is not like that and Navy does not play a big role besides protecting TRS to shuck troops onto the mainland.
Over in the Pacific you have to get rid of the IJN first and foremost. The land units are just there to take advantage of openings to take Islands and move closer to the main land. Considering how most players play Japan by never reinforcing any of the islands with any size of force. The USA can have 3TRS with 6 guys and do some serious IPC harm on Japan and their islands. It does not require a huge TRS fleet in the Pacific until late game.
Now lets look at the 18 TRS shuck to the Philippines. So you are sending 12 troops a turn to Manila. So, you wait one turn, now you have 12 TRS sitting in Manila with 24 Units, and you can threaten the entire mainland of China, from Singapore to Tokyo. Since you broke the shuck you then have 2 turns later another 12 units come from Hawaii to reinforce.
IMO the fastest way to neutralize Japan is to kill their IPC economy and that is found in the South Pacific and the coast of China. I understand the idea of going north but I do not think that is the best way to take down Japan. Taking Korea and all that stuff is end game moves for the USA to finally knock out Japan on their main island.
My question for you is at what turn do you think you will have enough of a US Navy to be able to build 18 transports and the support ships to protect the trns and to wipe out the Japan Navy?
-
I think the real problem with the floating bridge is that it doesn’t really contain Japan.
Well that is true because the Pacific war is at first a naval war. Europe is not like that and Navy does not play a big role besides protecting TRS to shuck troops onto the mainland.
Over in the Pacific you have to get rid of the IJN first and foremost. The land units are just there to take advantage of openings to take Islands and move closer to the main land. Considering how most players play Japan by never reinforcing any of the islands with any size of force. The USA can have 3TRS with 6 guys and do some serious IPC harm on Japan and their islands. It does not require a huge TRS fleet in the Pacific until late game.
Now lets look at the 18 TRS shuck to the Philippines. So you are sending 12 troops a turn to Manila. So, you wait one turn, now you have 12 TRS sitting in Manila with 24 Units, and you can threaten the entire mainland of China, from Singapore to Tokyo. Since you broke the shuck you then have 2 turns later another 12 units come from Hawaii to reinforce.
IMO the fastest way to neutralize Japan is to kill their IPC economy and that is found in the South Pacific and the coast of China. I understand the idea of going north but I do not think that is the best way to take down Japan. Taking Korea and all that stuff is end game moves for the USA to finally knock out Japan on their main island.
My question for you is at what turn do you think you will have enough of a US Navy to be able to build 18 transports and the support ships to protect the trns and to wipe out the Japan Navy?
By that time, Japan will be deep into China and maybe Russia. They will probably have India too. If such is the case, they can relax and start building naval units to counter yours. Unless you are severely ignoring Europe, it is very possible to never be able to get that deep into Japanese waters safely with so many IPCs being spent on Transports.
-
As for the U.S., the only time if even necessary in the Pac. Theatre to shuck shuck is when you have destroyed the entire IJN.
Shuck shuck goes then:
SF-Pearl-Korea/TokioWhile during the game you will build a few TT’s here and then and send 'em down South to help out Anzak grabbing M I’s.
This is why the US is interesting to play.
You have to have two set ups in your head. One for Atl and one for Pac. -
My question for you is at what turn do you think you will have enough of a US Navy to be able to build 18 transports and the support ships to protect the trns and to wipe out the Japan Navy?
18 transports for the USA in the Pacific is just crazy talk.
USA need to sink the IJN as their main role in the Pacific. The odd transport can be useful for tasks such as taking the Carolines, Borneo, Malaya. Doesn’t work so well for the USA to take Sumatra, Java and the Celebes because that income makes little difference to them.
IMO the fastest way to neutralize Japan is to kill their IPC economy and that is found in the South Pacific and the coast of China. I understand the idea of going north but I do not think that is the best way to take down Japan. Taking Korea and all that stuff is end game moves for the USA to finally knock out Japan on their main island.
Hmm, taking Korea while India is still alive would tend to draw troops away from India or do you think that Japan should just ignore the landing and press on to India before turning to hit the beachhead? That is probably what I would do BTW.
I think the USA Korea landing is a major headache for Japan, particularly if the other allies have the potential to reclaim some of the money islands. One game I was allies I built a naval base on Midway and the Japan player spent 3DDs a turn blocking the assault.
-
I agree with Simon about the use of US transports in the Pacific. You wipe out the Japanese navy and take back the islands and the mainland. Shuck your troops to Europe and take out Germany and Italy. Japan will be forced to surrender. You know, just like WW2. Unless the Japanese player has been smoking crack you will spend all day assaulting Tokyo while Germany makes mincemeat out of Russia and the UK.
Suggested Topics
