POLL: Best rounds to start the global war?

[Cow]

G1 is something to do for fun, not necessarily to win. There is no convincing me otherwise.

[BJCard]

I see the merit on G1:J1 and G2:J2.  I think waiting until J3 even with a G1 is just giving up on the Pacific side for Europe side win.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cow:

G1 is something to do for fun, not necessarily to win. There is no convincing me otherwise.

Than you must be calling my opponents and I weak, because I win with it a lot, a my opponents beat me with it as well. The G1 may not be for everyone, but calling it a novelty is insulting. Many players here have come out and said its viable and it’s position in the poll at 24 votes deserves some respect, just like your ideas on a J1 attack also deserves respect at 17 votes.

[Eqqman]

I think you’re misunderstanding Cow’s point, but of course it is up to them to clarify it.  I don’t think Cow is saying you can’t win, just that it doesn’t offer any dramatic advantages over any other equally viable route to victory.  Since you can win just as easily doing other things, then you do the G1 attack to give yourself some variety.

[Cow]

G1 is fun. It offers no distinct advantage to other strategies. It is fun. If that is insulting so be it.

[gamerman01]

@Cow:

G1 is fun. It offers no distinct advantage to other strategies. It is fun. If that is insulting so be it.

I agree.  Not seeing the value.  It’s not like you advance your push into Russia by a space.  You shouldn’t be able to push in any faster, because you can’t advance a space on G2 if the Russian player is playing right

[Young Grasshopper]

I agree that all strategies being equal, G1 is the most fun. I also agree that the economic penalties involved in a G1 attack on Russia negate the strategic positioning Germany gains from such a move. Therefore, putting it at par (IMO) with many of the options presented in this poll (and not with any advantage). My only objective in Cow’s comment was the notion that you shouldn’t do it if you want to win, but that was my assumption on the meaning of it and I’m sorry if I misunderstood the statement.

I wish to clarify that my position has always been that both a G1 and G2 attack on Russia are both viable strategies to win. My defensive attitude is mostly caused by those that suggest it doesn’t belong in intellegent strategy discussion when they have never tried it. That’s not directed at Cow, he has been very open minded, and looking at the poll results, maybe it’s time to drop my shield. I just want people to say that it’s a matter of preference in regards to G1 vs. G2 (or even G3), and not that one is better than the other.

Because there are many players ready and willing to support any one of these options.

[gamerman01]

There you go - cooler heads prevail - kudos

G1 is very fun for both players!  The back and forth on “the only front that really matters” is much more dynamic and fun!

[ghr2]

G1 is the most fun, but I think G3 is the most reliable and the safest.

[gamerman01]

You know, it wouldn’t be all bad if Russia didn’t start the game neutral.
Would have been a lot less rules, and there would be more action in the first few rounds of the game.
Just a thought

[Guest]

You know, it wouldn’t be all bad if Russia didn’t start the game neutral.
Would have been a lot less rules, and there would be more action in the first few rounds of the game.
Just a thought

Everyone starts at war is also a possibility.

[Cow]

I always prefer to be at war sooner than later. I tend to do crazy stuff when I dow G1, I try to take Russia on round 5 like a champ.

[Spendo02]

In my last game I was able to take moscow on R5 from a G1 DOW.  They didn’t have much left, maybe 6 Inf and 3 Art in the South when I was able to can open the lone Inf blocking a stack of 12 Armor and 10 Mech 3 spaces from Moscow.  They blitzed through the opening and parked right next to Moscow with only a few Inf and 2 Ftrs there which they reinforced with 7 Inf and 3 Armor.

Ends up I took Moscow with 4 Armor or so remaining, but the Russians were able to liberate it on their turn.  Granted Germany had 90+ IPC to spend on the next round, but without any control of a Minor near Moscow to keep the pressure on, Germany was in a bad spot and it felt like the game started over except now the US had the TT rotation landing in Africa, then S.France, and eventually Rome.  I felt it was worth the gambit, but the lesson learned is the blitz is only effective if you can keep the pressure on after obtaining the short lived victory.

All in all G1 worked well, but the gambit to take Moscow quickly only resulted in losing my momentum and turning defensive in Europe without maintaining control of the Reds.

On the other side of the board J1 DOW, took FIC and built a minor down in the south.  Cleared out the US fleet in Hawaii and even cleared the US homeland fleet later on.  China put up a stellar fight as I focused on taking Flip and allowing China a turn to control Burma with the assumption that I’d be able to keep the pressure on with Mechs and my AF until they folded.  Eventually they had, but I had to give up the Minor I built on J1 and replace it with one in FIC on J2.  Japan actually took Hawaii because the US spent 99% of their money in the Atlantic and I was only one VC away from victory there but could never garner the momentum to get into India even though they were perpetually collecting 12-14 IPC / round compared to Japan’s 45-52.  I spent a lot of my Navy and Air Force keeping the US away from any real threat as I tried to keep hold of the DEI, which I was able to hold all but Java and never got that NO.  In hindsight I don’t know if taking Hawaii was a better move which kept the US away or if using those units to get Java would have been more beneficial.

Note I told my opponent the general plan a few days in advance so there was no element of surprise - I didn’t want a cheap-o victory if I could secure it.  Note we also played from around 10 AM, with a break for lunch until shortly after 8 PM.  Even with a G1/J1 DOW the game still lasted many hours.

I look forward to refining the strategy more but I’d say theres more entertainment in the G1/J1 than any other form.

[Cow]

I am surprised you did not come up with the pacific win.

Also taking Russia even if just for a round… does mean you don’t have to worry about Russia for awhile. You could not drop say 10 inf west germany, 3 inf france, 5 mech 5 armor germany and inf the rest of the minors?  That way you have a turtle force to smooth things over and a push force for your next go?

[Spendo02]

I honestly think I should have secured the Pacific myself.

In hindsight, Anzac saved money and bought themselves a BB in round 2 and I had considered making a move to shoot down and take it as it appeared to be the easier of the two capitals to sack.  Particularly because the US wouldn’t have been able to liberate Hawaii AND Sydney with almost no presence in the pacific.  To further compound Anzac’s predicament was that their aircraft were in Malaya and they had already moved two Inf to DNG and lost their TT to get them home.

Of course this is in hindsight, but my lack of experience in going for the Pacific victory played into it - that and I ran into the unfortunate situation that I miscounted spaces and lost my carrier to UK subs because I had to move it into position to land aircraft that eliminated the remnants of the Indian fleet.

[gamerman01]

Yep, sounds like ANZAC was begging to be attacked in your game

[Strikers]

I find a G3 and J2/3 to be the best. A G3 gives you time to get armor and Mech from france to the Russian front. It also gives you time to get forces that Yugo and the infantry in bulgaria on the front to attack. Along with being able to summon a lot more forces it also allows you to focus the majority of your aircraft on England for G1 and G2.

A J1 attack seems to bring the U.S. into the war far to early. Plus it eliminates you from ever getting the 10 ipc free NO for being momentarily at peace. Also Japan only starts with 3 tt which in my opinion doesnt give you the massive expansion that Japan needs when declaring war. If I wait until J2 then I can have 6 tt to launch out and take Guam, Philippines, plus several of the money islands. A J3 DOW gives me 7-8 transports and time to position the 6 other transports exactly where I want them. Then when I make my attack I can take all of the money islands or drop one or two to take Malaya instead. (depending on how hard the allies try to defend them and the counter attacking power against the islands and Malaya. This also gives Japan the first 2 turns to really destroy china.

Thoughts, opinions, arguments?

[BJCard]

I think anything past G2:J2 is allowing the Allies to prepare for war too much.

Regarding Germany- If you attack Russia G2, you really don’t need your airforce in the east, so they can still harrass the UK.  If you do a G3, yes you can have more forces, but so will Russia.

Regarding Japan- the longer you wait the more powerful India and ANZAC will be.  I prefer to take a couple DEI J2 and the rest J3.  India has potential to make 24 IPCs or more if you let them gobble up DEI’s while Japan waits for war.

Just read cow’s treatise on the japan and germany playbooks to get more info.

[Strikers]

On the other hand I think that anything before J2/G2 is to rushed. Doesnt give you enough time to properly position and strengthen yourself for a long solid campaign of war.

[BJCard]

@Strikers:

On the other hand I think that anything before J2/G2 is to rushed. Doesnt give you enough time to properly position and strengthen yourself for a long solid campaign of war.

I understand the thought process you have, and it’s what I used to do every game G3:J3; but the Allies have such an IPC advantage that the Axis should be aggressive early.  Russia and India would be able to have a wall of Infantry.  ANZAC would have a proper fleet, and the US would be ready to strike with its starting units plus ~200 IPCs worth of units.

But, then again you certainly can do well as Axis on G3:J3, just depends on who you are playing and the strategies involved by both parties.