Need help with a Russain Tactics when I am sending US to Pacific.

On second thought, #3 is a “tactic”, not a “strategy”.

You should probably skip #3.

@Bunnies:

@12doze12:

Germany? With Germany I mostly build tanks and some fighters. I try to flank SU and go for sea lion and send some infantry to Africa

and with Japan?  Fighters and transports mostly but also some other navy units. I try to take SU and UK closest territories and at the same time I try to take some of the US islands and go for Australia.

It’s probably a bit more than that.  You might be opening yourself up to brutal counterattacks.

Let’s say that you send 4 tanks to attack 3 infantry for control of a 3 IPC territory.  You kill all the infantry in one shot, and lose 2 tanks.  Sounds great, doesn’t it?  You killed 9 IPC of units (+9), gained 3 IPC from the territory, and lost 10 IPC (1 tank) in exchange.  So you went +2. (+9, +3, -10)

But suppose Russia counters with 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter.  There’s a good chance you lose 2 tanks (+10 IPC to Russia), while Russia loses about 2 infantry in exchange (-6 IPC).  So there Russia went +7 (with the +3 for the territory).

Maintaining such a rate of exchange will quickly bleed Germany dry.  Sure, your attacks go plus, but if Russia’s attacks consistently have even bigger pluses, that’s bad news.

In other words - watch those expensive German tanks.  If you’re throwing them away, that’s an easy way to lose quickly.

Another comment - if Russia’s building all infantry early, you probably won’t have the power to push early with tanks unless Russia carried out a two-territory attack with lousy dice, or tried a risky triple attack.  Try a G1/G2 infantry heavy build, and switching to more tanks later, and completely cutting out the air buys.  (If you buy air, you can try to contest control of the Atlantic, but a total ground buy strategy works decently too, and is something you should probably try at least once or twice to see the differences in play).

Japan shouldn’t be buying fighters.  Assuming UK killed the Japanese fighter at Kwangtung and moved its sub at Australia to range of French Indochina’s sea zone, your J1 buy should probably be something like 1 destroyer 3 transports.  You start with 2 infantry on Phillipines, 1 on Okinawa, 1 on Wake, and 6 assorted ground on Japan (Tokyo).  You’ll pull two of those units off on J1, leaving 8 units on Japan and the surrounding islands, so a 3 transport build leaves you starting J2 with 4 transports and 8 transportable ground units.  At the end of J2, you will want Japanese transports at French Indochina in most cases; one of those can take units from East Indies (island) to French Indochina on J3, so you will want to build at least 6 ground on J2.  So on J3, you will have 6 ground on Tokyo, and 2 on East Indies; with 4 transports, you can move them all into Asia.  Slight variations include additional transport buy(s) on J2 for early attacks on Africa and Australia/New Zealand (for the last, using infantry from Solomon Islands, Caroline Islands, and New Guinea as applicable.

If you’re buying that much ground, then air’s pretty much out of the equation.

If US tries to build a big Pacific fleet, build a few subs (not fighters).  Subs are WAY cheaper than fighters, and hit very hard.  Japan starts with two battleships, two carriers, six fighters, and a bomber.  US should probably only have a battleship and transport in the Pacific at the end of J1 (and a US destroyer at Mexico).

By the way, try to take China with Japan.  The US fighter makes the US infantry a major threat.  Without the US infantry, Japan’s pretty much neutered.

You can try installing TripleA; look for Bunnies_P_Wrath; I’ll try to take you through a game.

Thank you soo much, this really helped me, I’m goign to play with him this weekend and with this information I’m really exicted.

Thanks men !!!

It is an old idea od Caspian Sub of organizing the transport from US to Europe using two sets of 4 transports via EC.

But the major difference is you do not land in WEU but you go through UK and Norway. The difference is that while Germany can deal with isolated landings in WEU or SEU, or prevent them to occur altogether, the Norwegian way reinforces the push in each round with the new units, while you preserve almost all of the original ones so that when you enter neighbourhood of Germany – EE in this case, you have such a mighty force there, Germany cannot think of wiping out. Moreover it may allow Russia to reinforce it too, or a sweet 1-2-3 on Berlin.

You have two fleets operating, one mighty combined UK/US SZ5-SZ6, the other one SZ2 to ship the units from EC to UK.

Ideally you have 8 or more UK units in Norway when starting the push, you reinforce them with 8 US, next round you go with those 8 UK plus new 8 to Karelia, you reinforce with 8 US plus 8 new, thus you will enter the EE with about 20 UK units, 24 US reinforcements and anthing russia can spare and you would be able to hit Germany itself with all that brutal force.

It usually does not go that ideal, you might need to drop some units to africa, from time to time you might trade WEU in case it pays off, but nothing should destract you from this basic scheme, i would say. And there is another thing it takes four rounds from the units produced at EUS to get to Europe so it requires some good planning and patience really.

thank you very much i knew this all along but my grand father thought it was a question to be asked i appreciat your reply

No. Your one movement is the loading onto the transport. Any land unit on a transport can be loaded and offloaded on a single turn but it takes up all their movement.

thanks for your help.

@Lithiume3:

Thanks how the bomber rule for the factory

First, if the territory with the factory has an aa gun, it fires one die at each bomber. Roll one die per bomber and if it’s a one, then the bomber is shot down and can’t attack. Then roll one die for each surviving bomber. Add up the rolls and their sum is the amount of damage to the factory. A factory can’t be damaged more than two time’s its territory’s production value.

Something else I’ve been pushing for for years is a wider Atlantic ocean. Make it a minimum two turn hop over the pond and the Germans might just have a realistic chance of stopping the US from pumping in troops here, and perhaps force them to think about a Pacific assault.
Making subs cheaper might have helped, but then anything that delays the Axis from moving maximum units to Caucasus/Moscow ASAP seems pure folly… that damned capture the capital rule really does narrow down the options when playing to win at all costs.