I agree with the shield and sword statement. It is my experience that Germany on its first turn should buy a transport for Italy and all men. Regroup your tanks and all your infantry into Eastern Europe and plan to take Karelia on turn 3 if possible. Turn 2 can work but can be costly. Germany should buy mostly all men on turn two and three as well and move them into Eastern Europr so as to overwhelm Russia and get ahead of their infantry total. Once Germany has more infantry than Russia attack Karelia with men and tanks only, save your planes. From Italy send two full transports every turn into Egypt and Trans Jordan until you secure the Suez and subsiquently Africa. Meanwhile Japan hits China, and India and then all out Russia, while still maintaining suppremacy in the Pacific by staying one step ahead of the US and as someone else mentioned take out as many US and UK ships as possible while not over commiting your fleet and only losing the cheap expendable replaceable pieces. An IC is a good idea if you are sure you can hold it: Manchuria is good to go after Russia, but can be reinforced by Japan transports anyway, FIC is safer but India is the best of both if you can capture and hold it, because it is two squares “a tank blitz” away from Caucauscus and Trans-Jordan and you can move fleet through the Suez if needed and assist Germany in conquering Africa as required. Not to mention taking precious money away from the UK. Japan would then purchase three tanks every round for India (or FIC) and keep that up until Russia falls. From India or FIC you can also launch a strike on Australia and New Zealand to further hurt UK. If UK buys an IC on India, Japan MUST capture it at all costs or UK will get the upper hand and its game over. If Germany and Japan hit fast and hard as a unit first at UK to bankrupt and “stall” them and get the valuable money they need and at US to “stall” them, then maintain that stall on both of them and go all out Russia so as to hit Moscow on the 5th or 6th turn from both sides, the Axis will have an IPC victory easily or if using victory cities (AA50 and new) or complete victory rules they will be on their way to world domination. :-)
Japan Strategies
-
Â
unfortunately it still seems like heavy uk/usa pressure on germany to free ussr up to push back at japan seems to be the bestunfortunately, I agree. Revised plays out like classic, with the most of the US chain going though northern Africa instead of the classic Norway chain.
If you’re looking for a more strategic rules set with many, many different playouts, try A&ARe or “Enhanced”. See http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=15339
-
Posted by: newpaintbrush
Quote from: squirecam on January 26, 2007, 02:34:05 PM
crit, what post were you responding to?The one in his head?
the one that was responding to me perhaps?
IMHO S. Africa IC is useless until you’re already winning
i wouldn’t go so far as to say worthless, it cleans up africa and allows usa to go europe or pacific as well as setting up a flow of troops into persia. since this is a thread about japan and having a way to get into south east asia would involve japan and some of us are willing to try new concepts even if “the powers that be” find them sub-optimal i felt it worth mentioning, even if it is only ‘in my head’
-
Critmonster - “some of us are willing to try new concepts even if “the powers that be” find them sub-optimal i felt it worth mentioning, even if it is only ‘in my head’”
–
oh yeah, my bad. I meant “in the head” thing as a joke.
–
Also, please do not say that I am a “power that be”. If anything, I encourage thought.
You did notice I wrote “IMHO”. That means “In My Humble Opinion”. That does NOT mean that I am telling you how to play, or that I say that I have a perfect paradigm, or any such nonsense.
If you want to call me an arrogant bastard, that’s fine, even accurate a fair amount of the time. But call me an arrogant bastard because I’m an arrogant bastard, don’t misquote me!
–
Also, please do not refer to yourself as “some of us”. Some of us find that offensive. :roll:
–
A S. Africa IC IS worth mentioning. But I do not PERSONALLY believe that a S. Africa IC is a good purchase for the beginning of the game, for the reasons already mentioned. You will note that I wrote “IMHO S. Africa IC is useless until you’re already winning”. Since I do not feel that this thread is strictly correct for explaining this, if you want to discuss a S. African IC strategy, please make a new thread if you really want to discuss the merits of such a strategy.
If you COULD really set up a “flow of troops into Persia”, it would definitely be worth considering. But I do not believe that you CAN set up a flow of troops into Persia, cost-effectively, anyways.
–
I am going to say ahead of time that I believe a S. African IC is a strategy that is usually only useful in one of three situations. One, if you are playing in a game in which you do NOT CARE if the Axis or Allies win, so long as you gain territory with UK. Two, it is possibly a plan that you would use if you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in either the US or USSR players. The third possibility is a horrible German build and bid placement.
In the first case, you place a S. African IC because you want to keep your African IPCs and provide some support to India and Australia. Of course, while you have all those IPCs down south, Moscow is going to be horribly imperiled.
In the second case, you can’t count on the US or the USSR for any kind of support. So you can’t rely on the US to help you free Africa OR to support in Asia, and you can’t depend on USSR not to pull all its forces out of a territory leaving your fighters stranded. Basically, if the US and USSR are total idiots, you have to do your own thing, and S. Africa is how you do it.
In the third case, Germany did something dumb like maybe buying two aircraft carriers and a fighter for G1. So the Allies may not be going for KGF because of the German navy, but on the other hand, Russia should do quite wel because of the lack of German units on the front on the initial turns. In this case, the Allies MAY want to go KJF, in which case I think an Indian/Ssinkiang IC strat would perform better. But it is POSSIBLE that a UK fleet unification southwest of Australia combined with a S. Africa IC combined with a US Pacific build could work as well. But understand, I feel that if Germany did something like buying 2 ACs and a sub on G1, that the Allies are ALREADY winning, that is, satisfying the “IMHO S. Africa IC is useless until you’re already winning” statement I already made.
-
Best way to get UK troops to Persia is Archangel - Moscow - Caucasus.
South African IC sounds crazy to me. Remember, the point is to maximize your IPCs. Build the IC and you are instantly down 15 IPCs. How many turns until you make that back in gained African income? Probably forever, because to make use of the IC you’ll be spending minimum 6 IPCs per turn down there to build Infantry, which on its own almost completely offsets the few IPCs in territory that you keep in Allied hands and out of Axis hands.
Might as well build an IC in Australia.
-
If you want to call me an arrogant bastard, that’s fine, even accurate a fair amount of the time. But call me an arrogant bastard because I’m an arrogant bastard, don’t misquote me!
i have no desire to call you that, nor was i offended by your post :mrgreen:
i apologise for poor emoticon use :oops:
Suggested Topics
