First turn UK industry buy in Egypt - how do you counter it

@tchenao

Gotcha.

Most players consider the game to be quite unbalanced in favor of the Axis. So the two sides will bid (in terms of IPCs) before the game and the lowest bid team will play the Allies. The bid can be used to place additional units before the game starts.

Sea Lion is definitely a much riskier strategy than just going straight for Moscow. Most people only go through with it if London is not well protected after the first round. A failed Sea Lion is pretty much a game ender.

@simon33:

Why don’t you just build a third fighter in Calcutta to defend against sbr? It is well spent.

Because I am worrying about a quick J3 Indian Crunch.  I am preparing for the following Japanese movement:
J1 move 1(2) inf from Kiangsi to Borneo, move 3 inf, 1 art from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to Philippines; J1 build 3 transports
J2 move 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to sz36; J2 build naval base in FIC; concentrate all carrier groups in sz36 (each with 1 tact, 1 fighter), bombers in Siam, block sz38 with some fleet
J3 attack India with 6-8 inf, 3 art, 1 tank, 3 tact, 3 fighters, 2 bombers (can have offshore bombardments)

According to the build & movement below (no Russian fighter to India), I will have
16 inf, 1 art, 3 AA, 1 fighter in India for defense.
This should just be enough to defend India.  If I build a UK fighter in India, then I don’t have enough infantry to defend India.

Middle East-Indian Wall strategy
[[to counter J1 attack, no matter Germany goes for sealion or barbarossa]]
Turn 1
C1: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 4 inf in Szechwan

UK1:
India 1 tack+fighter to Middle East (Middle Earth strategy)
Sz39 transport 1 inf to Persia
India 5 inf, 1 art=> Burma
Burma fighter=> India
Malaya 3 inf => Shan state
India build 5 inf

ANZAC1: Malaya inf => Shan state

Turn 2
C2: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 5 inf in Szechwan

UK2: (consider the case J1 take Borneo, build 3 transports; J2 build MIC and NB in FIC; move 3 transports to sz36)
Burma 7 inf, 1 art => India
Shan state 3 inf => Burma
India build 4 inf
(if no Sealion, build Persia factory)

ANZAC2: Shan state inf => Burma

Turn 3:
China: aim at taking Yunnan

@simon33:

I haven’t had much success with strategies like the one proposed except when Germany spends some of its money on fleet. That gives ussr a bit ight breathing room to do something.

But I agree with you, in case Germany goes for barbarossa, Russia should focus on wars in Eastern Front.  Again Yunnan and India worries me.  The above implies that China should defend J3 take and hold Yunnan by itself…

@wilk7011:

Does DOW on J1 or J2 effect neutrality between the Soviets and other Axis powers? If Soviets still have to remain neutral until RD4 do you wait to attack Russia with Germany?

No it doesn’t.  Still, Germany should probably declare by G3 and on G2 in some circumstances.

If you’re skeptical about J1/J2, i would recommend trying the standalone Pacific game a few times, trying each of J1/J2/J3.  The advantages of an early declaration and early expansion for Japan are pretty apparent in that scenario.

Imho J1 and J2 are also superior to J3 in Global (with 2nd edition rules), but in some exceptional circumstances (Sea Lion with a shot at success) J3 is warranted.

I’m personally a fan of J1 and have plenty of success with it, but my version does NOT include a J1 attack on Pearl Harbor.  Instead, at the end of J1, Japan should have 3 fleet groups (one by Japan, another by Borneo, another by Phi) that are poised to seize money islands and other critical targets such as Malaya on J2.

Ah man… it’s not looking so good. The US fleet off Hawaii looks like it can take you, and in my experience that’s never a good position to be in for Japan. Unfortunately, you have fallen into the trap that is China. For future games, don’t go all in for China until you’ve taken Calcutta. It’s just a huge cesspit that devours Japanese ground units and does nothing to help you win. There are no victory cities there for you to grab, and because there is no capital China is the easiest Allied power to bring back into the game. Also as Japan you want to grab SOME, not necessary all, of the money islands the turn that you go to war. I prefer a J2 DOW and grab Borneo, Kwangtung, and Malaya, as I’m a firm believer of storming Calcutta as soon as you possibly can.

In your current position, I would finish off China since you’re already so deep and there’s very little Chinese units left. I would focus all of my ground efforts in southeast Asia with the ultimate aim of taking Calcutta, and going on the defensive in the Pacific. For me this would mean huddling everything I can into SZ6, with a full scramble waiting to go on Japan itself, and then basically waiting for the opportune moment to strike. You’re definitely in it for the long haul at this point, it may be too late to get the money islands. Good luck!

@Nippon-koku:

Better question: Why did I buy extra French units from HBG? I’ve never even used them…

Haha!  Now that is dedication to the French

5 cent carriers were such a good deal! I bought 4 of them. I bought another $7.00 of French units too.

Then I realized… dafuq did I need 6 Carriers for? France never even builds one, let alone 6!

(The way I play Germany:)
Create 1 huge army that marches into Russia and arrives in Bryansk G5, ready to attack Moscow G6, together with purchases from G5 (aircraft in Berlin/fast in Ukraine). Purchases in G1/2/3/4/5 are always aimed at maximally reinforcing this marching ‘deathball’, like ghr and Demandr described.

Russia has no choice but to surrender Leningrad+Ukraine and Germany should gladly take them with some token forces (1 to 2 inf + air).

What the Allies CAN do about this (very generally speaking because of all the variables): Russia retreats into Moscow while building a lot of inf + ART(!). RAF helps to defend it. UK + USA getting strong at Gibraltar/London + Middle East and, very important, setting up ‘bomber command’. Comes G6 Germany cannot attack Moscow because it is too heavily defended. Luftwaffe is tied into Russia (making life easier for the allies preparing for DDay) because otherwise Russia begins counter-attacking, ending the German presence there. Germany can take Caucasus + Stalingrad but NOT in force because then the Russians can break out where it is most effective, attacking and destroying the German army defending Bryansk if there is still some there. If there is not, because all the Germans are in Caucasus/Stalingrad, what is to stop Russia from retaking Leningrad, Ukraine and all those juicy eastern-european countries? Nada.
Too bad this game has no ‘out-of-supply’ rules as this is exactly what happend in Russia, starving the massive German army in Stalingrad.

In the pacific, the USA + ANZAC have Allied task number 1: prevent an Axis (Pac 6VC) win. This does not mean Japan has to be killed (though you can certainly try), but Hawai + Sydney must be held. If Japan crushes India this is an easy job. If Japan clearly invests in taking Hawai/Sydney (luckily the USA goes after Japan so can react), the task is more difficult, but India will be safe  longer and can even become strong strong strong if Japan focuses too much on Hawai. Most Japanese players I have seen, invest heavily into taking India and Middle East and THEN they try to take Hawai/Sydney. This gives the USA breathing space to invest around 20% per turn into the Pacific, spending 80% of its income into Europe. By the time Japan is ready to invest into taking Hawai the USA can switch to near 100% into Pacific (depending on the Japanese investments) without a problem because its forces in Europe are already massive.

Note that I am using the LL system in my games (and posts) to predict/dictate what major powers must do to stay alive. The LL system is usually pretty accurate and if the dice screw you up, well, then it’s the dice, not strategy, that cost you the game.

I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it, and we love the game.

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It’s basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don’t have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don’t have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.