Opening w/japan…

[Guest]

I so, was independently developed.

I have only ever read one Caspian Sub strat… the 3 transport build G1 concept… and I was so NOT impressed I won;t join their yahell group to read any of the others.

[Wood the rook]

Why not postpone the Japan attack on Alsake/Western Can to J3.

On J1 buy 3 tran + take China + Pearl
On J2 buy stuff to fill 4 trannies + take Buryata (make sure the navy is in the SZ right by it)
On J3 use the trannies in SZ 60 (I believe that’s the one by Bury) and disembark all in Western (maybe some in Alaska but it would lower the pressure on Western US). Doing this, the US would be hard pressed to reinforce WUS. If they did only buy navy up to this point… or focused solely on the eastern coast, they’ll have to spend all this turn income on defense… end even then, the Japs have a slight chance of taking WUS with their 4 INF, 4 ART and between 2 to 4 figs + 2 BB.

I don’t usually do that but it might be a good diversion… and might turn into a game breaker if Japan take WUS.

Your thought?

[88 Millimeter]

It will divert U.S. economy.

The price you pay for that, however, is getting out of position for Japanese expansion to Africa or Australia/NZ. It also slows you down in Asia, which allows Russia to breathe easy for a few turns and focus on Germany.

I feel that the Alaska/W Canada backdoor is better as a threat, and if undefended perhaps a quick economic strike later in the game with minimal troops, just to be a thorn in America’s side.

[Guest]

I have to agree.

In my current game with Nix, he left 1 INF in Alaska, nothign in Western or Central US, and Western Canada was vacant.

I slipped 1 of my 4 TRN, along with a BB up to SZ63 and dropped 2 INF into WCan.

Sure, I only gained a buck, but I could have walked into both Central and Western US if he had not moved existing Eastern forces to Central and built forces in Western.  And with the BB, he had to build more than just 2 INF in Western to block.

2 INF from Eastern are 2 INF that will not land in Europe in 2 rounds.
And those 4 units built in Western are 3-4 rounds away from Europe.

I bailed on the next Japan move and sent those 2 INF back to Bury for the march to Moscow.

My losses:  1 turn of movement in Asia on 2 INF.
US losses:  2 round delay on 2 INF, 3 round delay on 2 ARM, 4 round delay on 2 INF reaching Europe.

And of course Japan collected an extra IPC when they took it, and will collect a second one before the US takes it back since the UK did not do so :-)

[ezto]

The caspian sub have a joint invasion of canada policy paper, that some of you might wanan check it out.

[88 Millimeter]

Exactly Switch. I’m in a game now (hope he’s not reading this) in which Alaska’s undefended, and W Canada has 1 Brit Inf. Next turn (J5) I’ll simultaneously hit Hawaii (with my troops who just finished mopping up NZ) and slip one tranny from SZ 60 to Alaska w/ 2 Inf. Since he has nothing in W U.S., he’ll have to respond to 4 units parked on his doorstep. Of course I have no intention of attacking. On J6 I’ll pull back. As you said, for the cost of 2 Inf (temporarily) in Asia I’ll get 2 IPCs for two rounds, and he’ll have to retake Alaska as well as build.

There’s no way, however, that I’d divert those troops if they were going to be destroyed in a counterattack or if he had previously defended the area. When I play the U.S. I aggressively tithe Inf to W Canada with a small offensive component to make sure the backdoor is always guarded. Then I’m sure I can maintain my focus on Europe.

[Guest]

Or simply establish your European Shuck with builds in WESTERN US, moving the forces to WCan then Ecan for transport to Western Europe.

It is only 1 round slower for INF and ART than Eastern builds… and TOTALLY prevents any thought of a Japan landing from Panama north.

[critmonster]

so the “threat” of hitting canada/alaska slows usa shuck by one round, thats a pretty fair deal for japan

[Guest]

Only the INF.

And if the US STARTS by building in Western US, then there is no real delay.

In point of fact, they hit Europe HARDER on the round they first land, and are better able to sustain repeated landings, by going this route.

[critmonster]

i like the idea of building in the west as well, then if the opportunity arises to play in the pacific you got the boots right there!  but it does slow the move to europe looking over your shoulder at 4 trannies in sz60

[88 Millimeter]

I’ve been lucky enough in a couple of games to be able to set up the shuck you speak of Switch. You end up being able to defend the west and keep a steady flow to Europe.

I’ve had a couple games in which I set up a 2x2 chain to Norway and a 3x3 to Algeria. Friggin’ devastating. Once the infrastructure is in place you just let the Infantry roll with the occasional tank or two for punch. And the northern chain gets its Inf from the W U.S., walked to W Can, walked to E Can. Japan never feels too comfortable approaching the coastline.

[Guest]

Exactly…

Japan can;t do the “cheap” move into Alaska or WCan if you are shucking via Western US builds.

And if you happen to preserve your initial BB and TRN as the US in the Pacific, then Japan has to CONSTANTLY worry about the US diverting forces to Asia… especially if you add a TRN off Western, then move all 3 naval units to SZ64… out of range of Japan based forces, but within range of landing in SFE and Bury…

[critmonster]

precisely switch, i love the juneau sea zone :-)

i usually set up the 3x3 in the north and 2x2 in africa because it is easier to control africa than it is to maintain a foothold in europe sometime i stage in brazil 2x2x2 and go sub-sahara (cool movie) then if the germans lose their ability to threaten the sea zone off algeria, BOOM you have 12 units and six trannies, going immediately to a 3x3 into algeria that threatens rome  :wink:

[JamesG]

When playing the US, I keep an eye on Japan’s pacific trannies even though I’m focused on KGF.  If Japan looks like they may try something cute on the west coast of North America, I simply build some/all of my tanks in Western US.  The US often has discretionary cash to buy an extra Inf or two as well on the west, while still buying enough to fill it’s trannies on the east.

If Japan lands, the tanks plus “extra” inf crush them on the counter, and if they don’t the tanks move to Eastern Canada via Western Canada with no delay to the shuck to Europe at all.

@88:

3x3 to Algeria.

Not sure why you’d need a 3x3 (or 2x2) to Algeria.  If the troops bound for Algeria are staged in Eastern Canada, trannies can shuttle between adjacent zones SZ12 (off Algeria) to SZ9 (off Canada), picking up and dropping troops in the same turn.  Unless you want additional trannies down there to threaten Southern Europe or something.

[88 Millimeter]

James- the last part of your post was right on- I like to always keep Germany under pressure on as many fronts as possible. I know that when I play Germany I’m relieved when I only have to defend either the top or the bottom. Having to defend both slows down the push into Russia. Think of it this way- how many times as Germany have the Allies moved one of their fleets, and suddenly your Germany based troops or S Europe based troops can move east? Since I know the feeling, when I’m the Allies I never like my opponent to feel comfortable. Even if I know the whole time that it’s only a threat- my adversary doesn’t.

Crit- good point about the north- 3x3 is strong up there. I usually play against people who continually threaten Africa with Japan, so I like to keep the upper hand economically by putting 6 U.S. ground units a turn into Algeria, and walking them across. Eventually they become a factor that can’t be ignored by the Axis. And if you really need to, your navy can move forward and they’ll be in the Caucasus in 2 rounds. But as a general rule- the north is better strategically, as the troops see action much sooner.

[critmonster]

88, when do you land in algeria initially? if you did it to me in usa 1 you would have to rebuild your entire fleet, thats gets expensive.

[JamesG]

@critmonster:

88, when do you land in algeria initially? if you did it to me in usa 1 you would have to rebuild your entire fleet, thats gets expensive.

If the Germans attack the Eygypt SZ on G1 with the BB, then the UK can pull down its BB and trannies to Algeria on UK1, and US can join with trannies and DD on US1 (and the Russian’s SS comes over on R2 as well).  Germany can counter with air on G2, but they will probably lose a LOT of fighters doing so.  Also if the German altantic sub is still around after G1, the German counter on G2 is more effective and the move to algeria by UK/US is riskier.

If Germany goes for Gilbralter with the BB on G1, or UK does not pull its navy down on UK1, then sending US forces to Algeria on US1 is suicide for that little US navy.

[88 Millimeter]

Crit- never checked this thread again, sorry no reply-

Absolutely- I’d land round one if only confronted by 5 German Fighters and a Bomber. Battleship, Dest, 4 Trans, Sub vs. Luftwaffe? A great exchange. Considering I’d buy a U.S. Carrier/ 2 Transports + Dest from Panama for second wave, + 2 Transports/ 3 Inf + Arm for Britain UK1.

Back to the battle- Germany gets 3 hits (BB, Russian sub, US Trans) vs Allies 2 hits (2 German Fighters) round 1
                           Germany gets 2 hits (2 Trans) vs Allies 2 hits (2 more German Fighters- ouch!) round 2
                           Germany gets 1 hit (remaining Trans) vs Allies 1 hit (last German Fighter- what have I done?) round 3
                           Germany gets 1 hit (US Dest) vs Allies 1 hit (Bomber dead, end of Luftwaffe, end of Germany, end of game)

Facing me you would never have the Ukrainian Fighter if you were wondering why only 5 German Fighters. I’m an aggressive M-f-er with Russia. Dead Ukraine, dead W Russia, nice Armor reserve (3 Inf/ 3 Arm R1 purchase).

I’m also assuming no bid. I never play with one (FTF player, my only PC’s at work, I like being employed so gaming bad idea). So unless you’re a wild man and leave Egypt alone, and bring your Med fleet + 1 Inf to Gibraltar, I’ll happily land in Algeria every time!  :-P :-D

[JamesG]

@88:

Facing me you would never have the Ukrainian Fighter if you were wondering why only 5 German Fighters. I’m an aggressive M-f-er with Russia. Dead Ukraine, dead W Russia, nice Armor reserve (3 Inf/ 3 Arm R1 purchase).

Hey, that’s my usual R1 move and purchase too!  I’ve even been known to go after Ukraine even if its reinforced with 1 German Inf from a bid…

[88 Millimeter]

Hey James- I’ve found that it’s quite rare on this site, but quite common at flames of europe. Makes me wonder…

I love killing the German Fighter. To me it means a great deal for Germany’s long term outlook. When I play Germany if my opponent leaves the Ukraine I’m secretly ecstatic. Extra Fighter, Artillery, and Armor that I didn’t plan on.

I understand the flip side- Russia loses hardware. That’s why you have to buy offense to back it up. And it’s a bad idea if you don’t plan on spending every available IPC and unit taking down Germany, because Russia will look pretty skinny after Germany takes back the Ukraine.

The other thing I like about it is that it limits Germany’s options- they have to take back the Ukraine and usually have to spend significant resources to do so. That slows them down in the north.

It also makes a couple other German attacks a little more dicey- for example, how many Fighters can afford to go against the British Battleship when you have only 5? Don’t you have to use at least 1 in the Ukraine to take it back? Now the Egypt attack is looking a little thin, etc.

All of that having been said, I understand the benefits of not doing it as well- but for me it comes down to the death of a German Fighter.