jen, what kind of bidding rule are you using for 24?
if you can place all the units in one terr, surely 12 would suffice?
then germany can place 4 inf in libya, or 2 in libya 2 in ukraine (to protect the ftr)
To stick more with the original topic, what do people think of this plan:
Russia buys a Naval Base for Soviet Far East just before they suspect that the USA will be able to enter the war. Then when at war, the USA simply starts shucking troops directly from San Francisco to Siberia, with the US fleet parked off Siberia to threaten SZ6. Or, make things more economical by skipping the Naval Base and having the USA shuck troops between SZ2 & 3, with the trade-off being that the USA is investing more heavily in Tanks and Mech Inf so that reinforcements can get to Alaska in 1 turn. Of course, you may want to go the Tank/MInf route anyway to speed up travel times in Asia. The Russian troops can either stay and help out or rush back to Moscow.
jen, what kind of bidding rule are you using for 24?
if you can place all the units in one terr, surely 12 would suffice?
then germany can place 4 inf in libya, or 2 in libya 2 in ukraine (to protect the ftr)
all place at once. You need a MINIMUM of 12 IPC just to save Japan by putting units in Europe, then you need the normal bid to balance the game for the Axis.
The Russian open has an 80% chance of success, even if it fails you have nearly 95% odds of doing serious damage to the German war effort and if that fails, well, depending on how bad, (3% odds?) you may want to throw the towel in. It’s not really an all or nothing thing, but a disasterous showing there would be akin to Germany failling horribly at Sea Lion in 1940. Germany might survive, but it’s not good - likewise the Russians might survive, but it’s not good.
I like the shuttle idea in Siberia, but Japan should own those territories before America comes into the war.
@Cmdr:
I like the shuttle idea in Siberia, but Japan should own those territories before America comes into the war.
I’m not sure that matters so much. If the Allies are willing to commit to this scheme a priori, then Russia can plop down the Naval Base right away in R1 before they can be stopped. If it falls into Japanese hands J1 or later, America will likely just take it back the first turn they enter the war. If Japan sinks enough resources into the area to stop the US from landing ashore, they’ve already played into the Allies’ hands by diverting their troops into an area that won’t win them the game and/or are exposing their fleet to a US attack. Plus the Japanese are unlikely to be able to discourage a drop into both SZ4 & 3 at the same time. Even without the Naval Base, if Japan is sending all they have to stop the SZ2 - 3 shuck, so much the better.
@Cmdr:
I like the shuttle idea in Siberia, but Japan should own those territories before America comes into the war.
I’m not sure that matters so much. If the Allies are willing to commit to this scheme a priori, then Russia can plop down the Naval Base right away in R1 before they can be stopped. If it falls into Japanese hands J1 or later, America will likely just take it back the first turn they enter the war. If Japan sinks enough resources into the area to stop the US from landing ashore, they’ve already played into the Allies’ hands by diverting their troops into an area that won’t win them the game and/or are exposing their fleet to a US attack. Plus the Japanese are unlikely to be able to discourage a drop into both SZ4 & 3 at the same time. Even without the Naval Base, if Japan is sending all they have to stop the SZ2 - 3 shuck, so much the better.Â
These are all good points. The more time Japan spends up there, the less it seems they are trying to win on the Pac map.
Hmm, yes, but they have the home field advantage. They can shuttle troops via the northern route via a complex in Korea - I have done it before. 6 Mech, 4 arm a round and shove them down Russia’s throat. Supplement with what you need bridged from Japan into Korea and up and you could have a major problem.
On the other hand, Russia has now blown 15 IPC on a naval base round 1, instead of units to hold back Germany. -5 Infantry compounded by 3 or 4 rounds to move them into position and further compounded by less layering between a German assault and Russian armored units.
What I like about this strat is that it allows USA to attack Japan and help russia at the same time without a major split between maps. It’s almost a having the cake and eating it too situation. Japan isn’t doing much in the pac other than fight in siberia which might be ok, but this time the US is there and it isn’t really stealing anything from Russia. As someone said, you don’t really need the naval base to do it.
Isn’t Japan in the south sucking up all the money island while you are shucking?
Isn’t Japan in the south sucking up all the money island while you are shucking?
The way the strat was described to me it sounded like Japan had its hands full in the north with the full brunt of the US income every turn. ANZAC doesn’t have much, but it can do a little to challege Japan down there if most of Japan’s resources are committed to the mainland.
Honestly I think Japan would just ignore the northern US forces. Get the southern money islands and eventually take India, but keep his navy very large.
Isn’t Japan in the south sucking up all the money island while you are shucking?
Honestly I think Japan would just ignore the northern US forces. Get the southern money islands and eventually take India, but keep his navy very large.
I’ll admit up front this is only a half-baked plan and how it plays out relies heavily on what Japan does- which is not ideal since a perfect strategy can be executed with little to no regard for your opponent’s moves. If I was a Japanese player faced with this, I would most likely do what theROCmonster says- ignore the US for as long as possible because the key to Japanese power lies in the south. The goal of the strategy is to compel Japan to come north when it is clearly against Japan’s long-term interests.
The war plans I’ve read for Japan call for heavy action in the south on J1 or J2 at the latest. In this case the US has immediate entry into the war and the arrival in Siberia will be unopposed and SZ6 is near-empty. The short-term goal is for the US to take Korea. The Japanese have enough starting forces in Manchuria/Korea that they can ignore a US presence for some time- but leaving those men there helps China. It is a choice of leaving your starting forces stuck there in Korea or leaving enough of your navy behind in SZ6 to prevent the US going directly after Korea by sea. If Japan blocks SZ6, then the US troops start to walk south while more troops are landed in Siberia while the USN continues to increase, forcing Japan to match it. Anything Japan does to cover Korea and/or SZ6 is going to take pressure off the south. Is it enough to matter? I can’t say since I haven’t tried this in a game. But so far this is just the situation where Japan has decided to hold and doesn’t go on the offensive in the north. A bold Russian player can also stack the Infantry behind Amur R1 and send the Russian Air Force east to attack Manchuria or Korea R3, with the Air Force back in Moscow to defend on R5 if the German attack can be held off until G6 (if you also choose to just abandon Moscow as some suggest, then these planes weren’t needed in the west anyway). The Russian player could also do the Amur stack on R1 to goad the Japanese to sending their forces north to crush it.
The other likely scenario is Japan never hits the Allies until J4. In this situation Russia may or may not have lost a lot of Siberian territory, which can be easily reclaimed by the US player unless the Japanese went so heavy up there that you have to question what is going on in the south. A Russia-killing major IC in Korea won’t be able to even place a full load of 10x troops until J3 (due to the fact that Japan starts 1 IPC (sorry, Production Unit (why the name change?)) shy of being able to place a major on J1). If these troops are trapped there in Siberia because they are countering a growing stack of US forces, then the plan has already worked. Japan could have also skipped the factory and just left a SZ6 navy to shuck troops directly from Japan to the mainland, but this also plays into the Allies’ goals since it is a commitment in the economically inferior and VC-absent north. A US player expecting late entry into the war could try some other interesting things, like a minor IC in Mexico US1 to get more pre-war spending into the Pacific (this might still be useful in any event if you go 100% KJF). You can also take the starting fleets in Hawaii and/or San Francisco and park them right off Siberia even before you are at war, since it is a valid move until Japan seizes those territories. Another option might be to go heavy air in the first few rounds so that you have something to fly over to seriously defend the Russian Infantry stack as soon as war begins.
What are the other KJF options? You can follow the previous suggestions and have the USA build 100% warships, leaving India and ANZAC to take the islands, but this leaves you shucking ships from San Fran -> Hawaii -> Carolines -> Phillipines -> Malaya (this route maximizes the threat to SZ6). This is basically just as long as sending MInf down from Siberia to Korea and it wouldn’t stop Japan from crushing India J3 anyway if they still go for it. The other downside is that once the naval battles are won, you can’t really re-purpose those ships for anything else and you’re still several turns away from getting them to the Mediterranean.
tell me again how this work when germany build 8 art on round 1, 18 mechs on round 2, round 3 he stacks east poland with 30 mechs, 10 pz 15 inf (didn’t bother to count it out) and builds 10 mechs and a ftr. round 4 he moves these now 70 units ish units to west ukraine, round 5 he moves them to belo, and round 6 he attacks moscow with 70 landunits + 15-20 planes. (he probably has more landunits by then, I bet cow can tell me exactly what he has.
anyways, when you build so few units, you will be screwed, he only need to take moscow, and his stack is stacked as one force, there are exacaxtly 0 of these small counterattacks
Obviously if Germany makesthat build then you don’t put all that cash into the things I said. But my group generally prefers to go down the Major IC in Romania or HUngary route and I’ve found that building only infantry or infantry and artillery throws the initiative over to the Germans and you are basically indicating that you’re not going to try and win with Russia.
Sure, if the Germans build like you indicated above then they’re playing competitively (as opposed to playing for a laugh) and you have to respond to reflect their intentions…
I’ve never understood that term “playing for a laugh”. Doesn’t everyone want to win? So why not always play competetively?
The difference between playing for a laugh and playing to win (in my humble view) is that, if you’re playing to win then you max out your percentages, you make builds that are statistically worked out as being the most effective and (in my experience) you end up doing the same tired old strategies that tend to make one game much like the next.
Playing for a laugh (again in my view) is more about having some drinks with some mates, rolling some dice and seeing who wins. These games tend to be much more experimental (eg. Is it possible for Russia to build and then effectively use an airforce? What happens if Japan invades the mainland USA etc) where we all try and win but we’re much more concerned with ensuring that everyone has a good weekend as opposed to the experienced players facerolling the less experienced ones.
I wish I could still play like that. I’ve played so many games now that I don’t have a “kid around” except for KJF sometimes in revised lol.
We also employ a meta-strategy entitled “Get [insert name] drunk” which tends to work well against certain members of our group :-D
In the US normally I buy at least 10 infantry on turn one, sometimes more. I use these to replace those sent to reinforce the South and Alaska as well as the islands.
The next turn is spent buying at least six aircraft, to replace the ones that went OCONUS on turn one to backstop HI, AK and Mexico.
If there is no attack on turn three then I buy a navy, at least three carriers and a couple of bullet stoppers. I then send forces to reinforce Canada, activate Brazil (on the way to North Africa).
Russia is
1- 100% Infantry
2- 50% infantry/ 50% tanks
3- 25% infantry/ 75% tanks
Past turn three really depends upon what is going on.
@American:
In the US normally I buy at least 10 infantry on turn one, sometimes more. I use these to replace those sent to reinforce the South and Alaska as well as the islands.
The next turn is spent buying at least six aircraft, to replace the ones that went OCONUS on turn one to backstop HI, AKÂ and Mexico.
If there is no attack on turn three then I buy a navy, at least three carriers and a couple of bullet stoppers. I then send forces to reinforce Canada, activate Brazil (on the way to North Africa).
Russia is
1- 100% Infantry
2- 50% infantry/ 50% tanks
3- 25% infantry/ 75% tanksPast turn three really depends upon what is going on.
I think you are playing with newer players. This might sound like a good idea logically when you first start playing, but when you play enough games you realize that this just doesn’t work. US needs warships and transports. Russia needs only infantry to have as much defensive power as possible.
“In the US normally I buy at least 10 infantry on turn one, sometimes more. I use these to replace those sent to reinforce the South and Alaska as well as the islands.”
Woah. That is ultra defensive for an American player.
True, but when I play America no one ever even thinks of trying to invade it. Later when it is time to start shipping the troops overseas they are all ready to go and you have flexibility to spend IPCs on the current map situation as the Joes are all ready to go. Since you are going to have to make them anyway you may as well make them early.
