what Hobbes is saying is 100% true. But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia. Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak. Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.
Jap transport bid
-
The Polar Express can be defended against, but it’s not as easy as it might seem. If Japan has a lot of transports (7 or so) in sz 60, that can force the US to make a 10 unit build in WUS, leaving Japan the option of simply going about its business and having set back the US considerably.
In my league game against Funcioneta this year I found out that Japan is also quite flexible about pulling out if it decides to dump units into Ala. Both parties must deadzone WCan (since Jap trns will be in reach of WCan and WUS must be defended from an Amphib assault, moving into WCan is tricky for the US) - if Japan can hold WCan, US is in huge trouble (defending both WUS and EUS in that case is extremely hard). But with many transports in the Pacific, Japan can relatively cheaply ship all of its units back to Asia in 2 turns, leaving the US with a big stack in WUS. The Polar Express certainly makes for an interesting game, and the Allied player has to stay on his toes.
As for the transport bid, I’m not a big fan of sz 37. I don’t see why you would want to attack Aus on turn 1, against India it only deters a factory (something which, while being a viable strategy, Japan shouldn’t be terribly afraid of), and if you want to use it against Egypt you might as well have placed a German bid in Africa anyway. sz 50 is interesting though - it deters a Bury stack (which I’m quite fond of when playing the Allies, but others might not) and the Hawaiian mainland attack accomplishes three things: it bags the plane, puts you in the ideal position to rack up Haw/NZ/Aus ASAP (some players forego (some) of these IPCs, but that adds up substantially over the course of a game) and it forces the US to incur some delay defending the West Coast.
-
@KGB:
The Polar Express can be defended against, but it’s not as easy as it might seem. If Japan has a lot of transports (7 or so) in sz 60, that can force the US to make a 10 unit build in WUS, leaving Japan the option of simply going about its business and having set back the US considerably.
- J lands 10-14 units on Alaska/E. Can
- US reinforces W.US with 10 units or more
- J leaves Alaska and lands units on Buryatia.
- US buys 3-4 transports and infantry. US moves all tanks to E. Can and infantry to W. Can or C. US.
- J Units for Buryatia head to Yakut
- US buys 4 transports more, moves all inf to E. Can or E. US, picks up 3/4 inf and 3/4 armor and lands them on UK/Algeria.
- J units move to Nov.
- 6-8 US units land in W. Eur.
Significant setback for the US? Only if you don’t know how to set the US ‘shuck-shuck’ properly. And meanwhile J didn’t put pressure on Asia/Africa during the 2 turns it took to go to North America and back. With the result that Russia and UK income haven’t suffered a big dent and they were free to focus on dealing with Germany (and in 2 turns G starts feeling the pressure of 8 US units on Europe).
I’d say significant setback for Axis since J got its priorities wrong. You need to kill Russia before G falls to the Allies, all the rest are unnecessary distractions.
-
As for the transport bid, I’m not a big fan of sz 37. I don’t see why you would want to attack Aus on turn 1, against India it only deters a factory (something which, while being a viable strategy, Japan shouldn’t be terribly afraid of), and if you want to use it against Egypt you might as well have placed a German bid in Africa anyway. sz 50 is interesting though - it deters a Bury stack (which I’m quite fond of when playing the Allies, but others might not) and the Hawaiian mainland attack accomplishes three things: it bags the plane, puts you in the ideal position to rack up Haw/NZ/Aus ASAP (some players forego (some) of these IPCs, but that adds up substantially over the course of a game) and it forces the US to incur some delay defending the West Coast.
Yes, I agree, there’s too much else for Japan to do on turn 1 before an attack on Australia. I like the opening invasion of Hawaii. From there, conceivably by turn 5, it’s NZ/Aus/Madagascar/South Africa all using the bidded transport.
As far as the polar express goes, I may take Alaska at some point if I don’t see any tanks in W. U.S. or E. Canada. That way, I should at least hold Alaska for 2 turns. Even so, I haven’t yet decided if it’s really worth sending units there instead of Russia……even if it’s just 1 or 2 infantry. They’ll easily be countered, and would likely have more utility as part of an infantry stack moving toward Russia. The 2 IPCs gained in Alaska will probably be short-lived. Although, I once won a game as the allies where I ignored Japan’s capture of Alaska and kept shucking to Europe. U.S. was deprived those 2 IPCs, but it wasn’t a game-breaker. I don’t think either Japan or U.S. can afford to send much there in a KRF/KGF game.
-
@KGB:
The Polar Express can be defended against, but it’s not as easy as it might seem. If Japan has a lot of transports (7 or so) in sz 60, that can force the US to make a 10 unit build in WUS, leaving Japan the option of simply going about its business and having set back the US considerably.
- J lands 10-14 units on Alaska/E. Can
- US reinforces W.US with 10 units or more
- J leaves Alaska and lands units on Buryatia.
- US buys 3-4 transports and infantry. US moves all tanks to E. Can and infantry to W. Can or C. US.
- J Units for Buryatia head to Yakut
- US buys 4 transports more, moves all inf to E. Can or E. US, picks up 3/4 inf and 3/4 armor and lands them on UK/Algeria.
- J units move to Nov.
- 6-8 US units land in W. Eur.
Significant setback for the US? Only if you don’t know how to set the US ‘shuck-shuck’ properly. And meanwhile J didn’t put pressure on Asia/Africa during the 2 turns it took to go to North America and back. With the result that Russia and UK income haven’t suffered a big dent and they were free to focus on dealing with Germany (and in 2 turns G starts feeling the pressure of 8 US units on Europe).
I’d say significant setback for Axis since J got its priorities wrong. You need to kill Russia before G falls to the Allies, all the rest are unnecessary distractions.
Hmm. There are some complications for the US. I don’t know how the US shuck is set up. Just using two stacks of transports in sz 10 and sz 12 and not moving ground units to ECan is very easy to mess with. Moving all or part of your units from WUS -> WCan -> ECan works great against pesky 1 unit incursions into Ala, but because of its naval and aerial assets Japan will be able to attack any units in WCan at very advantegeous rates. If Japan lands 10-14 units in North America, just having 10 units in WUS won’t suffice - you need more than that to deter a landing in WUS, or have enough tanks handy in EUS to retake it. And any inf builds in WUS will have a hard time getting into the fray in Europe if Japan retreats - not only does it take 2 turns for them to reach ECan, you also have to make sure they won’t get smoked if they pass through WCan.
-
If the US player ignores the 7 transports at range of Alaska/W. Can then he just make a serious mistake.
If J decides to keep his offensive on the US, then it means that the units being used there aren’t going after Russia nor is J’s income raising much on Asia or Africa. J is simply trying to kill the US but they are almost matched in production and the US is defending.
Meanwhile G is having to deal with R/UK by herself… I’ll take that deal anytime :)
-
Japan going for the USA isn’t something that should be the Axis grand plan, it should happen if the Americans leave themselves vulnerable. You’re right on that. I’ll take Russia/UK vs Germany any time as long as Allies have Africa.
But you must consider the geography. If Japan is allowed to hold Western Canada, the Americans most cost effective defense for WUS is of course infantry. Then what happens when Japan shifts to Eastern Canada? America will need to move over to defend EUS so they’d better have a lot of tanks for mobility.
-
@Fleetwood:
But you must consider the geography. If Japan is allowed to hold Western Canada, the Americans most cost effective defense for WUS is of course infantry. Then what happens when Japan shifts to Eastern Canada? America will need to move over to defend EUS so they’d better have a lot of tanks for mobility.
Agreed with the Africa part (I never, never let G have Africa). And yup, if the US allows J to take and hold W. Can then things get interesting on North America :)
-
The key for Japan is speed, and that trannie bid aids great. I find if Polar Express is well done, the first assault is round 2, 3 as much, and a turn later a IC for Alaska. If well done, USA is out of Europe and Africa the whole game unless they continue ignoring the invasion (and that spells doom for USA itself), and if Germany is well played and holds some ground in Africa (mad, saf, ken) while holding UK + soviets at EEU or better, Karelia, axis will have economic advantage and will win in the long run. This destroys in fact the point of KGF
Of course if allies try fight the Indian or Pacific oceans, no point doing Polar Express. Polar Express is my solution against a 100% of KGF games. I know allies will start the suck at WUSA 80% of times and I take that into account. Anyway a proper J1 buy with both PE and JTDTM is 3 trannies, 2 inf or 4 trannies if you let 2 IPCs to Japan
The only times I lost with a Polar Express where because I did it too slow (I think 2 times only), and one of them where the soviets who saved the day in Asia. Any Polar Express needs at least one IC at Asia (mainly FIC) just to ensure soviets don’t ruin the day, and if Japan hits the 50s, maybe 2 asian ICs. Speed and more speed is the key: allies left the iniciative in Pacific, so Japan must take it and don’t let escape the prey even for one second
-
The WCan attack is important: Japan can send all they have in Alaska and also units from Japan directly to WCan if needed without much damage to Japan’s shuck due that Perry channel unfrozen (I like this the slingshot effect). It seems like if testers viewed the Polar Express as possible when designed, because the map seems allow that move specifically with that marvellous CUSA territory that makes a take and hold of WCan a deadly move if Japan does. Revised was really well tested in my opinion
Add a bit of salt to the wound: many players move the USA aaguns to Africa and get WUSA SBRed by Japan bomber (by a bomber parked in Bur, or EUSA if bomber is parked in Ala, then they must sink 5 IPCs to another aagun :wink:
-
The key for Japan is speed, and that trannie bid aids great. I find if Polar Express is well done, the first assault is round 2, 3 as much, and a turn later a IC for Alaska. If well done, USA is out of Europe and Africa the whole game unless they continue ignoring the invasion (and that spells doom for USA itself), and if Germany is well played and holds some ground in Africa (mad, saf, ken) while holding UK + soviets at EEU or better, Karelia, axis will have economic advantage and will win in the long run. This destroys in fact the point of KGF
The key for J is an incompetent US player. And if you are holding a strategy dependent on the other player making mistakes then you’re dead. US can hold off any J invasion if properly played and Polar Express strategy it hurts more the Axis than the Allies.
-
The key for J is an incompetent US player.
That isn’t really true. One of the benefits of the Polar Express is the element of surprise. Japan can play an absolute normal looking go after Russia strat early only they can shift to Polar Express.
Consider this, within the first 2-3 turns, Japan has at least 1 IC, and 4-5 trans. An Asia Shuck usually has 1 trn going around getting Aus, NZ then HI and the other 4 trns are doing a 2x2 combo with 4 units to Bury and 4 units to Fic. Well in this case all Japan needs to do, is when they plan to take HI, just drop off the 8 units to Bury instead of the split. Now 10 units can hit WCan it this took absolutely no planning by Japan. And even deadlier move would be to drop 2-3 more trns (with 5-6 inf to Japan) in Jap Sz and maybe back track an inf or 2 to Bury and now the threat from Japan is 14-16 inf to Ala or Wcan.If Japan goes to Ala they can atack Wcan the following turn with 20-24 units (give or take), plus probably 4 ftrs, 1 bom, 2 bbs. Not an easy thing to defend, particularly when the US must also protect WUS if Japan holds Ala.
Even if the US is using an 8 unit shuck starting in Wus, it can’t prevent the heavy landing to Ala and the follow up threat to WUS/Wcan if the Japan player sees a possible opening.
And if the US player appears to be too well defended for a full Polar Express then Japan can nix the extra trn buy and continue to offload to Asia while trading Ala with its HI tran and BBs/ftrs. And perhaps in the trading of Ala the opportunity may arise to hit the US reinforcements in Wcan.
Again, the really good thing about Polar Express is Japan doesn’t have to do anything out of the ordinary in the first few turns. Japan always buys trns and always buys an IC or two. But you get to see how the US player sets up his shuck. Anything less than 7-8 units to Wus can really open the door for Japan, and I wouldn’t necessarily call placing 6 units on Wus every turn incompetent.
-
That isn’t really true. One of the benefits of the Polar Express is the element of surprise. Japan can play an absolute normal looking go after Russia strat early only they can shift to Polar Express.
Consider this, within the first 2-3 turns, Japan has at least 1 IC, and 4-5 trans. An Asia Shuck usually has 1 trn going around getting Aus, NZ then HI and the other 4 trns are doing a 2x2 combo with 4 units to Bury and 4 units to Fic. Well in this case all Japan needs to do, is when they plan to take HI, just drop off the 8 units to Bury instead of the split. Now 10 units can hit WCan it this took absolutely no planning by Japan.If the US player ignores the 7 transports at range of Alaska/W. Can then he just make a serious mistake.
If the US is already paying attention to 7 transports then he will pay attention to those 5, specially if Hawaii has been attacked and there’s a J fleet there and J just decided to change its unloading routine.
If playing against anyone who has never faced or heard about this strategy, J will have the element of surprise. But if you’re into surprising unexperienced players there are plenty of ways to do so.
Perhaps it is better to ask: can this strategy work against opponents who have successfully countered it in the past?
-
You are not going to surprise anyone with a traditional JTDTM anyway, and JTDTM means 50% of axis wins and also needs speed to work. My win ratio with Polar Express is better than with JTDTM
If you don’t try, you will never know if works or not. The same applies for a balanced approach with allies (the so-called KJF) :wink:
-
You are not going to surprise anyone with a traditional JTDTM anyway, and JTDTM means 50% of axis wins and also needs speed to work. My win ratio with Polar Express is better than with JTDTM
If you don’t try, you will never know if works or not. The same applies for a balanced approach with allies (the so-called KJF) :wink:
Out of the hundreds of games I’ve played both board and online I’ve seen opponents trying this strategy and I lost once or twice but in all other attempts it failed because I was aware of it.
This is called learning from other people’s mistakes, if you see someone pointing a loaded gun at his own head and pulling the trigger you don’t need to try it yourself to know it is a bad idea.
But if it is so effective why don’t you see players complaining more and more on the Revised forums about it? People desperate about tips on how to counter that crazy Japanese strat that defeats the US.
Funny how that doesn’t happen… ;)
-
This is called learning from other people’s mistakes, if you see someone pointing a loaded gun at his own head and pulling the trigger you don’t need to try it yourself to know it is a bad idea.
But if it is so effective why don’t you see players complaining more and more on the Revised forums about it? People desperate about tips on how to counter that crazy Japanese strat that defeats the US.
First, that’s a extreme comparation (the gun vs the Polar Express, I’m not going to die if I lose one A&A game, and it’s not a 100% lose if I try Polar Express while the gun in the head is so). Is irrelevant for this talk
But the effect if more people would try Polar Express and work would not be complainings: people simply would cease doing KGF all the time and start making a balanced approach, because a allied Pacific fleet cancels any chance of Polar Express. I guess also bids would be down to 3-5 as much
-
This is called learning from other people’s mistakes, if you see someone pointing a loaded gun at his own head and pulling the trigger you don’t need to try it yourself to know it is a bad idea.
But if it is so effective why don’t you see players complaining more and more on the Revised forums about it? People desperate about tips on how to counter that crazy Japanese strat that defeats the US.
First, that’s a extreme comparation (the gun vs the Polar Express, I’m not going to die if I lose one A&A game, and it’s not a 100% lose if I try Polar Express while the gun in the head is so). Is irrelevant for this talk
Actually if someone dies or not from it depends how well he aligns the barrel with the brain. And the point I was making is quite relevant: it is a bad idea that will do harm to whom tries it and so is Polar Express to the Axis.
But the effect if more people would try Polar Express and work would not be complainings: people simply would cease doing KGF all the time and start making a balanced approach, because a allied Pacific fleet cancels any chance of Polar Express. I guess also bids would be down to 3-5 as much
So, if I get this right:
- Allied player is afraid that J might attempt a Polar Express so he decides to built a fleet with the US.
- Japan decides instead to go for Asia
- US has 3 options with this Pacific fleet: either try to challenge Japan in the Pacific, which is an uphill battle; pull it back to the Atlantic, which take 2 turns; or leave it there.
Essentially the money the US spent on the Pacific fleet won’t have any immediate impact and it will take a long time and investment before the US can threaten Japan or safely reach the East Indies/Borneo/Philippines. Meanwhile Russia is feeling the pressure of both Germany and the japanese troops and the US just lost precious turns to reinforce Europe because J could do a Polar Express. Which would actually work against the Axis, at least in my opinion.
Sounds great for Axis: no wonder the bid gets lower for them :)
-
Lots to think about here. Thinking about the Polar Express and the entire game itself, the phrase, “For everything gained, there’s something lost” comes to mind. If Japan is in W. Canada, it halts the US shuck, but if they’re in Asia, it forces Russia to spend more to defend against Japan. Every game I play as Japan, the thought always crosses my mind to send my 4 transports to Alaska/W. Canada, but I can’t ever come to terms with it because of all those units you take away from Asia. Even if the US was out of the picture in Europe because of having to deal with the polar express, I don’t see how Germany could overcome Russia and the UK by themselves anyway.
As far as simply bidding a Jap transport….that works well regardless of whether you go after the US or not. It’s a win-win for Japan. I just won an Axis game with that transport in SZ50 implementing a KRF. It’s key to grabbing income very early on–income that you wouldn’t normally get a hold of that soon. I was able to hold Africa for a while with Germany as well. I admit, I was pretty fortunate to do that without the German bid. Overall though, I definitely recommend bidding the Jap transport.
Suggested Topics
