Key word is the Allied Navy. Now granted that you can pull all available troops in Europe and hit Karelia with a super stack, you still have a good chance of winning even against 18 inf, 3 ARM, 2 ftrs. However, there’s no way that the surviving force can poke through Russia on G2, especially if the Russians have reinforced entirely with inf. This is where the Allied Navy comes in, when you busy building ARM for an invasion force and have to wait for supplementary inf to arrive on time, chances are that UK and USA will be hitting you in Western Europe or Worst Yet(!) Germany itself – game over.
Russia in the East
With the units that Russia has in the far East (1 tank 6 inf.), what should they do with them? Should they blitz Manchuria or hold back at the Yakut? Keep in mind I’m play with USSR restricted and any help would be thankful.
definitely avoid manchuria. your force is much inferior on offense and japan works best along the cost where it can drop infantry of trannys. give japan a headache by making him chase you inland.
Okay, thanks. Here’s another question concerning the East: Should Russia reinforce the European front in any manner or work solely on Germany? Should the Japanese be in control of the three border territories before Russia starts building troops in Moscow?
Don’t attack Manchuria with Russian troops
if you are using all three allied powers
against Germany. Play perventive defence
against Japan while crushing Germany with the
help of your allies. Remember for every
strength in your opponents army he has a
weakness. You and only you can determine what
it is. If he groups his forces and likes to
give a big knock out blow then avoid it and
knock him back to Berlin.
Okay here’s the inevitable question about Japan: What areas should they hit? Should their forces try to take over as much Russian territory as possible or try to join hands with the Germans in the Middle East? Or should they just take terriotries closest to them?
The most important countries in Asia are Yakut, Sinkiang and India. If allies can hold these countries then Russia is secure and maybe Africa as well. The line between these countries is also the narrowest and therefore most easy to defend line. If you lose Yakut then pull back and wait for the Japanese at moscow, if you lose sinkiang then send some forces to novosibirsk and a few to khazakh, if you lose india, bad luck.
Japan should therefore try to capture Yakut and Sinkiang as early as possible in the game, after dealing with any allied factories.
Russia eastern defence: 5 infantry in Yakut, 2 in Far East and 1 tank in novosibirst to counterattack german or japanese assaults or to support india factory.
Ok thanks, I’ll look forward to my next game of A&A!
With regards to Russian forces in the far east….they are a very valuable commodity and I find it essential to preserve them as much as possible in order to hold back Japan.
I find that attacking Manchuria the wrong thing to do. First of all, even if the Russians manage to capture it, their forces are now (more than likely) weakened to the point where they will not be able to defend it for long, leaving the far east without defence. Secondly, it tends to piss Japan off to the point where they counter attack with vigour and press on into Russia perhaps sooner than they would have normally.
The Russian forces in the east are far better utilized in a defensive manner. I will pull the tank back into Novo in reserve for a counter attack on the Japanese as well as pulling a Russian infantry from the far east onto Yakut, strengthening this territory as much as possible. I will make it a priority to send a couple infantry from Moscow to the east to help fortify on every turn. The idea is to “delay” Japan as long as possible. As well, I will try to build an armour force in Novo in reserve which can be used to counter attack both the Germans and Japan. My whole strategy for playing the Russians is to hold on as long as possible, counterattacking any German or Japanese attack when possible. I leave it to UK and USA to actually go on the offensive and defeat the Axis. Only if Japan poses no threat in the East will I consider going on the offensive with the Russians in Europe.
I will always purchase 1 tank and the rest infantry with Russia. I find the armour is essential in counterattacking.
When playing Japan….
I will commit as many resources as possible in attacking Russian territory and pushing onto Moscow as quickly as possible while ensuring that Burma and Sinkiang (I will usually take this territory) are adequately defended. However, I will not buy an IC. Instead, all land units will be transported via trannys in the Japan sea zone. I will build a sizeable tranny force. I find this serves two purposes. Firstly, it is now possible to transport a sizeable land force in one move onto Manchuria allowing to continue with attacks on Russia. Secondly, you are building a fleet in the Pacific which, when added with a Battleship or Aircraft Carrier (which hopefully has been preserved from the start), makes for an effective coastal defence in the event that the USA decides to concentrate its efforts in the Pacific. If there is no USA presence in the Pacific…see what happens when you load up a few of your trannys and instead of dumping the troops off in Manchuria, you start heading for the Western USA. This tactic can come in very handy should the need to draw USA resources AWAY from Germany become imparative, not to mention you might actually succeed in attacking the USA…this puts a whole new twist on things.
Basically…I like having lots of trannys when I play Japan. Flexibility.
Yanny last edited by
But, if you want to try something fun, do the attack first turn. Follow it up with an attack on Kwangtang by the british, and an attack on Indochina or Kwangtang or Manchuria with the US. Sure, it isnt gonna win all of your games, but if you manage to knock Japan off the mainland first turn, its funny to see the Japaneese player’s face!
Aha! The classic “Japan 1st Strategy”! It’s a good’un!:D
As far as USSR, I wouldn’t try the attack. You may get VERY lucky and cream Japan’s Manchu forces. But Japan MUST control Manchuria to be effective so what do you think they’ll do? Then you’vs lost all those guys and must commit resources to East Asia waaay too soon. I’m not the best USSR player but I will always try to maintain a force of 2 INF 1 ARM in Novosibirsk at all times. Then each turn if at all possible, 1 INF moves to Yakut and is replaced by 1 from Russia (while moving forces to SFEast if necessary). This force is a strategic reserve specifically for counterrattacks wherever the threat is, whether it be Yakut, Ssinkiang or Karelia (w/ the tank).
A word on colloquial nomenclature : when you guys use the term “tranny” to describe “transport” I think “transvestite”–the “short forms” are the same. Guess that’s what you get for living so close to San Francisco. Just an observation!
Hmmm… Should Russia just pertect its motherland or help the Americans and British protect their territories?
All tha Allies should tooth-and-nail defend USSR territory. Taking UKs Empire is highly desireable to the Axis but nothing will win the game quicker than defeating Russia. My theory–USSR is in somewhat the same position as Germany: they must concentrate on the closest foe (Germany) while keeping the other (Japan) at bay while using the least possible IPC investment to do so. If you start pumping large numbers of forces into East Asia, you may prevent Japan from defeating you, but Germany will take advantage and destroy you.
Also, if Japan takes Yakut, the USSR should try to take it back. If it can’t, block them by putting INF in their way. DON’T let them march to the gates of Russia before countering them–they’ll just get so strong you will be forced to face them, allowing Germany to take over.
In response to someone saying that losing india was “Bad Luck” I’d just like to say that with Russia Restricted it is inevitable. The only way to keep it would be for russia to fly its 2 fighters down on turn one. This is a bonehead move because russia needs those fighters to defend the homeland. Otherwise, since russia can’t take manchuria, japan has more than enough firepower (3 inf, 2 fighters, bomber) to dominate 2 inf and a fighter. Even if the us reclaims it on their first turn the damage has been done, japan should have an IC on the mainland and can pump out tanks just as quick, if not faster, as the english.
But on UKs turn they could beef up those 2 INF by using the TR in India to pick up 1INF from Syria-Iraq, 1 INF from Egypt (if it lives) and bring them back to India. Would seriously weaken Africa, but you could Transport more guys there from UK…? This way you could put down an IC in India T1 and feel fairly secure.
Just a thought…
I don’t think any German player would give up the chance to take Egypt (2 IPCs) on the first turn
Mr Ghoul last edited by
Ozone27 that tranny comment lol thats some funny sh*t.
Yanny last edited by
Ok, another issue I am strongly against. Taking Egyst turn 1 of Germany is a fatal mistake. It is probably the easiest way to take Germany out quickly. Why? Its a simple counterattack. Counter attack with 3 infantry 1 fighter, and you destroy the German African core. Germany now can die very easily.
Now, if you attack Egypt turn 2 it gets much easier. It allows you to safely (without risk of the sub) put 8 infantry 1 tank into Egypt.
“History is just a set of lies agreed upon”
- Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference”
- Robert Frost
[ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2002-02-11 12:38 ]
of course this would only work if the British really wanted to leave India for the Japanese. I don’t know, giving up a territory worth 3 to keep a territory worth 2, it just doesn’t seem worth it to me.
Also, people like to mention that the Japanese can hit India on the first turn with overwelming force; I don’t think that is the case. If you keep the transport in the sea zone around India the Japanese can’t do an amphibious assualt and only a truely determined opponent who wanted india at the cost of the rest of his mainland operations would pull off taking India .
A Japanese attack on India (if reinforced as above) can work, but its iffy. At maximum, Japan can attack w/ 2 INF from Burma, 2 INF from the Philippine TR, 1 FTR from Burma, 1 FTR from Manchuria and a BMR from Japan–facing 4 INF 1 FTR in India. 1 FTR from the Carolines CV must be used to sink the UK TR. These are fairly decent odds: except that they pretty much preclude any other attack that turn unless you want to hit Hawaii w/ purely BB’s and 1 sub! Or hit China w/ 5 INF 1 FTR–either way, you face HEAVY losses by the end of the turn. Not to mention that the attack on India could itself lead to such losses that the US could retake it w/ 2 INF & 1 FTR: very bad news. I like this move because it forces Japan to react to the UK, not vice verse. Of course it also requires a heavy commitment by UK to the Far East, which may be bad for the Western Allies if the USA isn’t on the ball. I dunno, but I DO know that at least 1 Ally should spend at least some IPCs countering or at least slowing Japan, or USSR can be quickly surrounded.
Just my $0.02…
Oh–1 FTR from the Philippines could also hit the UK TR. You can switch around the forces however you want, but my point was that this is the MAXIMUM you could throw at India T1.
[ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-02-11 22:20 ]
how does egypt influence on the india factory.
For England the point is not about giving up a territory worth 3 IPC (india) in the sake of one worth 2 (egypt). At stake is how long the germans are going to have Africa (worth 10 ipc´s.)up against how fast the japanese is rolling over asia. And in the early game its England job to decide it.
Now the german gambit in egypt should be counter attacked with troops from India.
as stated earlyer
But then what ?
if this is the use of the last english troops in the area the ipc argument about prefering india against egypt could be considered. But its not.
This is the rare case where african factorys are appropiate . The english is building a factory in south africa, and if the course of the game allows it later, another one in egypt.
with this gambit , The german take over of africa is proberly delayed (the sub could have taken the transport- germany might not have bought an transport- there might be in turn 2 a transport as a valid target , and he could have lost troops in egybt ) all over weaknesses there means that its limited how fast troops is sailing into africa.
the german then have some though considerations.
the german mediterainan fleet might be sunken early in the game if the english can land there planes in africa, ending the african adventure. And as usual every troop commited to Africa is missing against russia.
if he goes all out after africa. He still needs a troop build up. And no matter what the english would have a very active role in the game, draving away troops from the east.(and this would give russia troops free ).
And if he loose or just give up africa
to england. The English can then stop the troop buid up there and focus elsewhere. Or gather trops in persia/ syria to make presure in asia (or on the east front.)
now the german attack on egypt is a gambit, because the counter attack puts england in a more active posistion and shortend the german hold over africa. but without a south african and/or egyptian factory its not that much of a gambit.
summary: The germans should not do the egypt attack, but build up in libia.
And therefore the english can get troops to reinforce India. (Also a rusian fighter might land there and still participate in attack on cacasus or ukraine in round 2- but then if germans do egypt, russia will loose a fighter to japan if the english counter attack egypt is this worth it ?). and this means that a first round attack on india from Japan is very unlikely (and unvise).