yes, a strafe on Hawiian Seazone is another option, i would advise it when facing many UK navy units threating the Japanese; since Japan cant go strong on 5-6 places, but rather this how redeploying its attacking forces over Pacific
I usually take China, attack pearl, and get ready for a J2 attack on India.
All depends on the Allies dispocitions, do they KGF or KJF ?
As general, your 30 income can not face US 42 income, so your route shold be going west, away from US forces, while stalling US fleet as long as possible with as less units as possible.
KJF
If Russia play conservative in Europe and stack in Buryata, and UK attack Borneo and that other island, or French Indo China, and kill your tranny and sub, and use the carrier and trannies to block you, and place a factory in India or Ausstralia, then you can be sure US will place 2 carriers in the water and come after you, and then I dunno what to do.
KGF
Now if Russia stack in Yakut, UK move all naval units away from Pacific, then you might figure US too will move the navy from Pacific to Atlantic. Buy 3 trannies, move them to sea zone 45 and threat Australia, Hawaii and Western US. Attack China. Decide what route to take to Moscow. If you go Indian route, you can choose to take Africa.
I am playing the axis now, and my strategy was the northern route through russia. I kept bringing forces to the mainland and bought 2 IC’s to load up on tanks. I then proceeded to destroy Russia. They are no longer part of our game now… Germany is also still very strong and UK is within my reach. However, USA has started an invasion into the Soviet Far East, so I will hav to regroup all my Japan tanks and artillary and head east to meet them. Should be interesting.
I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?
Australia and New Zealand add up to 3 IPCs that are rather remote and hard for the allies to liberate. In other words in most games once Japan has it it stays theirs.
I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?
The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.
@Amon:
I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?
The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?
@Amon:
I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?
The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?
The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies. It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn. You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference? The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.
The Axis start the game with an economic disadvantage $70-Axis vs. $96-Allies. The Axis have no hope of winning in the long run unless they can reach near parity with the Allies. Taking Australia, NZ, Madagascar, and Hawaii is 5IPC the Allies have no realistic chance of retaking (with the possible exception of Hawaii). Japan should be able to take and hold Yakut, SFE, Bury, China, Sink, India and Persia for another 11IPC, that changes the balance $86-Axis vs. $80-Allies, these values will fluctuate as each side trades territories. Germany needs to take some African Territories to offset the loss of Norway and West Russia.
@Amon:
I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?
The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.
yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies. It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn. You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference? The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.
wow i can’t quote. this is my response:
yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?
@Amon:
I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?
The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.
yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies. It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn. You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference? The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.
wow i can’t quote. this is my response:
yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?
Yes, it is. :mrgreen:
@Amon:
@Amon:
I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?
The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.
yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies. It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn. You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference? The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.
wow i can’t quote. this is my response:
yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?Yes, it is. :mrgreen:
I said you were right. I said it wasn’t worth it at first and then i realized i didn’t count the ipcs as double(once to gain and once to loss). so Austrilia is worth it but I think there are much more important things to do. I prefer landing in Africa rather than austalia. but my attempt at fixing my messed up quote resulted in screwing it up further. cuz if you read my post it has two conflicting view points.
Cyan, I agree with you that landing in Africa is important.
Usually my TRN goes to Australia only as a stop along the way for Madagascar and Africa. Alternatively I may go to New Zealand, Hawaii and then hit Alaska (to annoy USA) in the situation that Africa landing is not strictly needed (if German is well placed there and Allied are not currently contesting it).
Africa is afcorse of greater significance then Australia, but Australia( Oceania ) is still of great importance.
and cyan, np, i wasnt tryin to be sarcastic or anything, just replied to your note.
With the guys that I play with, I’ve never seen a game where Japan heads south for Australia & NZ. In fact, when I play the UK, I ALWAYS send my sub and transport w/ 2 infantry to New Guinea (against their 1 infantry). I don’t think I’ve ever lost this battle (not that I couldn’t). I figure if I take NG, that’s a 2 IPC swing in the Allies favor. I also think it makes Japan use some navy to take out the sub and trn; which would alleviate some pressure for Hawaii or the India fleet.
It is not a move that is done in J1, and is not a move to do in the face of UK and USA fleet that assault Japan.
In my view is an intermediate move that Japan may do while on the route for other objectives.
It is not a move that is done in J1, and is not a move to do in the face of UK and USA fleet that assault Japan.
In my view is an intermediate view that Japan may do while on the route for other objective.
Agree. with the exception afcorse if Japan units are ˝free˝ in the first turn, and dont have any ˝better˝ targets, then elimination of UK naval units would be a good move
but i suppose you wanted to say this too, so i ve written it now
Yes I agree. If Japan have to deal with UK ships they are priority targets.
My english sometime is unclear even to me… :(
My usual strategies with Japan is to build up to 5 or 6 TRNs, for J2-J3 (it depends from the board situation). 4 of them have to be used to shuttle land units to French Indocina and Buraytia. The remaining(s) are used to take other UK assets, retrieving the Japanese island based infantry in the process. Usually I have the time and the opportunity to get Australia.
Then, as said, if Africa situation needs Japanese intervention I head for Madagascar. Otherwise I go to New Zealand before going to Hawaii.
If UK and USA are willing to counter the Japanese expansion, however, this options may be impossible to get.
@Amon:
It is not a move that is done in J1, and is not a move to do in the face of UK and USA fleet that assault Japan.
In my view is an intermediate view that Japan may do while on the route for other objective.Agree. with the exception afcorse if Japan units are ˝free˝ in the first turn, and dont have any ˝better˝ targets, then elimination of UK naval units would be a good move
but i suppose you wanted to say this too, so i ve written it now
he said that if japan was not in danger. if it was free Japan should attack.
As others already have said, Japan really should go after UK units and income as first priority.
UK is close to Germany, and it is important to keep UK income as low as possible in the early game.
USA is far away and need 2 turns to land in Europe, so even if US have high income they can not put it into good use in the early game.
