I think waiting even one turn to start agresively atacking Britan and the US in asia is a mistake. If you used this against me you would be facing 10 Inf and 3 Ftrs in India and 12 Inf and 3 Ftrs in Sinkiang by the time you got there. This is not a very big investment for the Allies and it can be just enough delay to allow the allies to bolster the defenses of russia and stall the Japanese advance.
Before you ask I will explain.
Turn one
Russia moves 2 Inf from Eve to Novo
UK builds an IC in India, moves the transport to Aus, the Inf from syr to Persia, two fighters to Kar.
The US builds an IC in Sin, evacuates China to Sin.
Turn two
Russia moves 2 Inf from Novo to Sin, two fighters from Kar to Sin
Britain build 3 Inf in India transport 2 Inf from Aus to Ind, move 1Inf from Persia to India, move 2 Ftr from Kar to India
Us build two Inf. in Sin.
At this point I don’t think you will be attacking India or Sinkiang as you are clearly out matched. You will of course be able to over take the production of 5 Inf per turn But I believe it will be to long of a delay.
I think India and China need to be attacked on the first turn to set up the fall of sinkiang on turn two. If Russia attacks Manchuria they are setting themselves up for a swift counter-attack and sacrificing a valuable tank in the process.
So you don’t use your transport to block Japan from a naval invasion on india? Big mistake? Why?
With 2 inf 1 fighter in japan, I can not only easily assault India with the Phil transport, I can also keep my mainland reinforced and attack china. How? 4 Infantry 2 figher into India, 2 infantry 1 figher 1 bomber into China.
With it in blockig position I cannot take and hold it.
I believe Dezrtfish has it right. Ignore Britian/USA in Asia and face a stream of units underminding your infantry attacks against Russian Asia. Building an IC in French Indo-china Burma will give you the strength to take the Allied territories threatening to build IC’s while still advancing into Russian Asia. This will also threaten Africa and a more southern route into the Russian capitol…
As I said before, why waste money on something that can be captured by the enemy like an IC. You can send more troops to the mainland by buying transports. See previous post for the math.
If the USA takes a Japan first strategy, you could lose at least your transports by turns 3 or 4. Japan can’t afford to replace them, you’ll at least need 1 IC on the mainland operating to make up for it…
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.
Not necessarily. If the US can quickly move armor and infantry via transports to the Asian mainland (Alaska to Soviet Far East), this will secure Russia’s north-eastern back door and kick the Japanese ultimately out of Asia. Again, all this depends on the skill level of the players in question. The Japanese player who loses his or her fleet in turn 1 runs a great risk of this. This is where mainland IC’s become vital for Japanese survival. Even in later turns the lose of their fleet can be seriously damaging. Japan must prepare for this scenario if the Axis is going to win…
Why would you buy bombers to attack Russia? You should be buying tanks. Bombers attack at a 4 and tanks at a 3, but tanks only cost 5 ipcs and bombers cost 18. You can buy three tanks and an infantry for the price of a bomber and they are each twice as good at defending as are bombers if the US decides to attack you or Russia decides to confrunt your forces in Asia. Also, bombers can not remain in the Russian capital to defend it if you manage to take it. Plus, you can claim territories with tanks and move them as a single force. With bombers you can not claim territories and have to have to split up your force when you move into a new territory (ground troops remain as single unit, bombers return to occupied territories). I see no reason for the bombers -buy tanks.
[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:20 ]
On 2001-12-09 17:31, Yanny wrote:
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.
I agree. For logistic reasons it is far easier for Japan to defend itself than it is for the US to attack it. Japan should be able to destroy most of the USs initial navy in round 1 while retaining most of its own fleet. There is no reason for Japan to build a navy to confront the USs navy if the US goes after Japan. Japan should be building a force of tanks to go after Russia and if the US wants to go after Japan that force can easily be turned on the US if Japan has to defend NE Asia. Japan should retain several fighters that are great for defense as well and one round of buying infantry can go a long way towards providing a defense against the US if they are foolish enough to go after Japan. Remember, it only costs Japan 3 ipcs for a unit of infantry in Asia and 5 for an armor plus a one shot 15 or so for an IC or two. It costs the US 7 for a unit of infantry ((3+3+8)/2) that only attack at a 1, and 13 for a tank (5+8).
Germany would love to have to contend with two countries rather than three. US goes after Japan is a very bad move IMO.
[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:42 ]
