This is a Alpha 3(final) triplea game question regarding G, J vs USA T3



  • This is semi-cryptic as I am lazy, but more importantly, if you understand it…then I definitely want your feedback, if you don’t, please ask a question and I will answer, but we are a bit scared of the implications of this scenario…especially if America doesn’t pull back to Panama…but how many folks will do that?

    T1
    In a nutshell G produces 1 cv, 1 trn saves 7.  J produces cv, trns(or combo, we haven’t decided).
    America produces?
    T2
    G produces 4cv, 1 destroyer (west germany). J produces cv, trns( or combo, we still aren’t sure)
    America…just what exactly should they produce with Japan parked off Carolina?

    T3
    G moves to W.Gibraltar.  J takes Hawaii in force?(depends)  Australia if not protected, etc(depend)  Panama etc.  Kills fleet.

    Our point is…can G and J tie up america such that J has free reign to win the game on VC?  I don’t like this scenario, and we have been tossing it around.  Frankly, we are going to start America first smack scenarios.  I am not sure they can recuperate in time.

    Any input is appreciated, especially if you have already thought this through.
    America produces



  • is fairly critical, and yet…we aren’t sure there are solutions as the builds are ambigious for G and J.

    Thanks.



  • You just broke the game, looks like Larry Harris didn’t think on that possibility  😢


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    One factor that occurred to me is the leeway you are giving the UK. They will probably guess Sealion is not happening after the 1TT buy on G1 and invest in an Egypt IC and not 9 Inf. I think you have to get 2TT with your 1CV and then buy 1 fewer CV on G2. I am also wary you might not be able to cover your 5 CVs with Air units, even if the UK did not scramble on G1 naval attacks. I understand surprise can be everything, but a competent Allied player should be able to cover it.
    In the Pacific I find US’s best move is to go to Australia, so when war breaks out they are covering the Southern money islands and the Carolines with the Naval Base’s 3 moves.
    Am not so sure if Japan can stretch to taking and keeping Hawaii as well as taking and holding 4 more in Asia. I think from Australia the US can threaten them either way.
    I find Japan has far too many enemies and struggles to hold them all at bay.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    I realise I did not say what I would buy as the US.
    T1: CV, DD and Sub and 2 DD for the East.
    T2: : 3 Navy, maybe 1 Ft for Central and  TT in the East.
    Need to have map out to know exact balance of Navy and Air for a Hawaiian counterattack(if even possible on US3).
    I am assuming you would have attacked China on J1 and 2 and then take Hong Kong and Philippines on J3 as well as moving on Hawaii.
    How many TT do you expect to take to Hawaii? I would have dropped 2 Inf there on my US1.
    Will this also mean you could not deny Anzac their 10 at war Bonus? They would have dropped 2 Inf on New Guinea on 1 and on 2 moved one of them to Dutch NG. Unless you take one of those 2 territories or land on Solomons or New Briitain or take Malaya they double their money. US would be in SZ 54 on US2 with all the units they begin the game with.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Thank you as I have enjoyed thinking this one through.
    I always play as the Axis which is why I think I can see flaws in the plan(sorry!)
    I know how my Allied player frustrates my plans.

    I understand your reasoning too: the Axis only need to win on one side, so why not join forces to do so. As long as the Russians do not break through or UK land in France, European Axis should be able to do their job of staying alive.



  • LOL, Andy revealed this strat to you guys already. My purpose is to show why letting cv’s fighters convoy is broken.

    Anyway, lets see UK attack 5 german cv’s in z112, My first 5 hits are soak offs, and I am refining it so that the BB lives and 2 of the 5 starting subs live…this is achieved for the cost of the 2 german bombers…Don’t forget Italy has 2 ftrs to land on them. (Attacking z111 then retreating to z112 leaves 1 UK battleship, but gives Germany 2 subs regardless of UK scramble, this is achieved by sending both bombers to z111,2 subs, bb and thats it with Germany…assuming 3 German hits out of 5 pieces, I retreat, also assumes UK will scramble in case I hit 4 times…uk has 4 pieces, so assume 3 hits…damage the bb, remove two german bombers and you save the 2 subs, this permits 8 air units and 2 subs on z110 to discourage a scramble if they do, Germany can lose 2 tactical bombers which will be replaced by Italy’s 2 ftrs later)

    Anyway…

    z101 is vulnerable to 32 IPCs, z 89 west indies/mexico is another 3 IPCs, with the German trn you take west indies from Gibraltar and now USA loses 35 IPCs plus 5 National Objective for a total of -40…

    This only costs Germany 2 builds, its airforce and 4 land units…USSR is not at war yet, and Germany just digs in and lets Japan win on the pacific.

    We are just now testing it, I never wanted to reveal it until we refined it…Oh well, cats out of the bag now.

    We have a few US ideals for counters, except, if we Tie up USA with Germany, does that not achieve the aim?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    I see now: you will give the US player the choice of taking out your German Carriers or defending against Japan. Tell  us how it goes.


  • TripleA

    Yes, germany can tie up the USA. Nothing really stops russia from holding up calcutta. or UK from flying in fighters to the seazone off of East USA. So Japan can get tied up too and Germany’s tieing up of USA can be subtracted by some of UK’s income.

    OR

    you can just let USA get convoyed and hold it up with infantry and keep spending in the pacific.

    It is only -35 from america, which is not the same as losing london or russia (countries in strategic positions). If germany dedicates that amount of stuff to sit there to convoy those amounts.



  • Wouldn’t the US and UK just buy a crap load of cheap subs? Once the Germans lost their small destroyer screen, all sub hits would have to be taken on the carriers. If the German fleet is off the US cost, the German fighters would have nowhere to land and would be lost. Or am I missing something?


  • TripleA

    Freedom Reign. The axis get to DOW on the allies first so your subs will likely be on defense unless you spread out destroyers to block an attack on them.

    You either build an atlantic fleet with USA or you don’t. Generally speaking, I prefer not to. I mean if germany wants to shove all that stuff right there, who cares, that is stuff that is not doing anything to UK or Russia or the med. It is only a strait up loss of income for USA and no gains for germany.

    It is the equivilent of losing London, except London is -30-37 allies and +8 germany.

    Plus nothing really stops USA from taking his pacific fleet and parking it in sz 89, forcing germany to retreat. Or if usa’s pacific fleet is mostly carrier fighter, you can kick him out with a strait up air attack. West USA reaches Japan sea zone and can sink Germany’s stuff.
    ~
    I mean I have done this strategy about a month after A3, it works, but it is not an I win button. People have different approaches to it.

    I tend to do this post sea lion in some games (generally I prefer to just spam inf to defend london, west germ, and italy while slugging my way to moscow post sea lion, because that is more fun and usually a london takeover automatically makes USA go heavy atlantic anyway so I have forced USA to dump rounds upon rounds of stuff in the atlantic).

    The strategy does work out, but you got to be really aggressive with Japan. Also you do need it to be a surprise somewhat.

    Most people don’t think, Germany is going to park a big fleet off the coast of America.



  • So the German fleet is convoying z101 on USA4?  By then the Americans have had a few turns to build up defense of Hawaii.


  • TripleA

    Yeah something like that. Ideally you want to do that to USA on turn 4. G2 place naval G3 move naval G4 convoy USA.

    Also it is really random the amount you convoy, you could do 10 sometimes and the full 32 at other times.

    Also if usa rolls up his fleet or makes a big fleet in the atlantic… and you got to back off… what do you do then? How are things looking with Russia and UK without your first 2 rounds of buy?

    Also when I declare war on Japan 1, I don’t even deal with America until Japan 3 or Japan 4 when they come in range (even then USA stays away). So it is not like USA is doing anything anyway. USA goes to Japan sea zone and gets blasted, no problem.

    For this reason it is the equivilent of doing sea lion, comparing it to sea lion we have these procs and cons…  pros: does not require ground units except for one transport loaded (just to have the threat of usa takeover or to nerf central usa factory) Cons: big commitment of air. Randomized ipc impact. No income reward. No VC reward.

    I guess you could add that another pro is screws with USA income rather than UK.
    ~
    Just try it and you will see how it plays it. It is fun. Good to do different things sometimes to spice games up.

    I still do my Japan 1 declaration of war strategy. All germany is doing is distracting USA for me in an otherwise full pacific USA game.

    I mean it is annoying if the allies are bringing stuff in to calcutta with russia or london money. USA can’t get there in time before I take it with Japan, but those countries can.



  • Hmmm OK so Russia is pretty much off the hook with Germany spending everything on carriers.  So how about if the far east troops march back to Amur on R2 and then on toward Kiangsu?


  • TripleA

    The same thing that happens in a normal game. As Japan, I want to avoid a confrontation with USA so I want to keep all my stuff together in SEA so if USA comes to me, I can sink usa with minimal losses. So Russia can do what it wants up there until I have the dutch islands and calcutta.

    Other people do things different, but if USA is at Hawaii… and can’t even dent my fleet and leaving SEA won’t cost me some islands… Sure I can swing back up top



  • OK so let me get this straight.  While the Japanese air force is off taking India and the DEI, the Russians (and Chinese!) are marching to Kiangsu and take it round 6.  There is no threat to Russia from Germany because they spent everything on carriers and sent the luftwaffe to convoy USA, so the Russians may be sending mechs and the red air force to China too.  With Germany doing nothing in Europe, the Americans can spend every dollar stacking Hawaii and the mega convoy raid finally starts eating into US production round 5.  So at that point how is Japan supposed to take both Hawaii and Kiangsu??  How long til India gets liberated?



  • First of all, who said you need India for a win?

    This strategy is a turn 5 or 6 win for the Pacific side, using, Phillipines, Hawaii, New Southwales, Japan, Kiangsu, and Kwangtung for 6 out of 8 cities.

    The theory, is to let America waste its resources sinking the expendable German fleet in the Atlantic so that the Japanese player wins by turn 5 or 6. Since, we can assume, that USA will suffer some losses sinking 5 carriers fully loaded with air units, 1 bb, 2 subs, 1 dd, and 1 cruiser……

    The goal is to capture Australia by turn  5 at the latest.

    The goal of the German distraction is to prevent a solid USA defense of Australia and Hawaii. Hawaii is the last city to capture, China is engaged and forces then withdraw to protect the 2 cities in Asia. The axis do not lose, if they surrender Germany and Italy, so my buddy and I are split on whether to even build land units in Europe, or to stream subs towards the USA with Italy and Germany until the capitals are taken. That debate is still ahead of us.

    If America takes losses engaging the German fleet, then I suspect Hawaii will fall. If they ignore the convoy, then Japan will outproduce them long term, so Germany may not want to surrender itself in that case.

    That is the concept we are testing at the moment. Stay tuned.



  • Its a neat idea, but I could see America just ignoring the convoy raid and making you go for the long haul like you said, then Russia creates problems for you in China.



  • occupy the USA and convoy raid them do death while japan wins in the pacific is the nut shell of this idea correct?

    seems possible… but not probable (imo).  look me up on tripleA, i’m on there most days  builder_chris and try it against me a few games and we will know if its a good idea or not.  my gut tells me…NOT…but than again i’ve never seen anyone try it.



  • Early tests show that Germany should stick to 4 carriers, have Italy build 1, this gives Germany the 2 transports turn 1 to fake a sea lion, also it permits the building of 1 dd and 2 more subs, for a total German fleet of bb,ca,dd,4cv,4 sub, 3trn. The Italian fleet varies based on UK moves. This causes UK to respond with all land units the first turn as normal, it maintains threat on Northern Russia and this leaves sufficient subs to convoy UK as well. Not sure if turn 3 naval build is needed, or whether an invasion of Spain is needed as well.

    For long term prospects, Germany still outproduces USSR, UK will not be able to build a fleet easily unless they swing one around and save money. If a German bomber survives turn 1, Bombing UK may be viable as a stalling tactic as well. German may be able to spare some air units if Japan is able to supply them with fighters in z101. (This can be achieved from New zealand sea zone number 63 via: z50,z61,z64,z89,z101)
    Still fine tuning this one, I like where it is going. Carriers being able to have air units convoy is a bit over powered I believe.



  • @JamesAleman:

    Still fine tuning this one, I like where it is going. Carriers being able to have air units convoy is a bit over powered I believe.

    Personally, I’m thinking I may house rule that only tac bombers can convoy raid.  Air supremacy fighters weren’t exactly the primary threat to merchant vessels and if tac bombers more or less represent heavy fighters, naval bombers, torpedo bombers, and dive bombers, it makes sense to me that the standard fighter doesn’t have that role. It also encourages (mildly) tac bomber purchases, which is good, considering a fighter is almost always a better buy in my eyes.  Would tone down this down a little, but maybe not overly.  I don’t dislike this as a rogue strategy, but yeah, it shouldn’t down right break the game.



  • The method we have stuck with that gives us 2-3 submarines surviving onto turn 2 is as follows:

    G1: Attack z110 with 2 subs, 4 ftr, 4 tac- 10 units discourages a serious scramble due to sea lion threat.
         Attack z111 with 2 subs, 2 bmbr, bb - go one combat round (both sides lean towards 3 hits if they scramble
         a ftr) retreat 2 subs, damaged bb to z112, remove 1 or 2 bombers depending on if UK hits 2 or 3 times.
         Worse case scenario: if you hit 4 times and win, remove the subs and save the bombers as UK counter attack
         will be brutal.

    Noncombat Canadian sub to Greenland: Should be left alone, or draw a dd and maybe a bomber out of theater. if not sunk: can return to z106 next round. If you roll poorly, you may leave UK with a ca and bb in z111 (this can be addressed by fighting to the death with the bb if desired) This is the biggest gamble of the strategy, and it may not ultimately be needed as we test out other scenarios. (i.e. we just lose the 2 subs we are trying to save and move on)

    Results: by leaving UK a damaged bb in z111, some players may try to save the bb by blocking two zones with dds. This disperses the fleet from the optimal z106 and permits a German counter attack of the last 2 dds with 2 subs and air units; opening up submarine convoys of UK. If they ignore the bait, you can sink the BB with 1 or 2 subs if desired.

    The reason bombers are being traded is that they cannot support the USA convoy strategy long term. 2 subs adds to the convoy fleet capacity and strength.


    Pacific observations: (Spoiler Alert! There is an allied move that prevents the below plan from working, I hate that it may be legal, but I won’t spill the beans as most players will never think of it. It delays Japan by one turn and forces different naval moves and must be done with immediate foreknowledge of Axis plan before this players 1st turn.)

    For a turn 5 capture of New South Wales, I have added the capture of French New Hebrides on turn 2; just east of Queensland and south of Solomon Islands. This French Island is open to capture without offending the US/UK peace. Furthermore, It maintains the 10 IPC NO for Japan as war with France does not matter, you are only restricted from attacking French Indo China specifically.

    Why do I want New Hebrides?   Answer: For an airbase to capture New South Wales

    Turn 2: I seek to redeploy air force from Kwangsi to Caroline Islands sea zone, landing Caroline islands sea zone planes on Caroline- giving us 12 air units in theater turn 2. Remaining air force lands on Paula island.

    Turn 3: Land Caroline island and sea zone planes in New Hebrides, Palau planes on carriers. Build an air base on New Hebrides (turn 4 may prove better) (may not be needed ultimately, still running scenarios) Now you can scramble to protect a few transports if you want to stage a couple here (this is nice if Anzac has only one blocker), it would require a few naval ships as casualties depending on Anzac fleet disposition.

    Turn 4: drop off 22 of the 25 units available at Caroline Island on Queensland: accomplished using 11 transports (3 starting 3 built turn 1, 5 built turn 2) during combat and noncombat from a total land force staged on Caroline: 1 arm, 17inf, 3 art, 4aaguns (these are the 24 starting pieces (plus 1 purchased art: see note at bottom) I had to chose from, I chose to leave 2 infantry and 1 artillery on Caroline to assist on the turn 6 capture of Hawaii). This is the ideal turn to build the New Hebrides air base.
    Also capture Philippines and Kwangtung as well on turn 4 using turn 3 transport build and starting pieces staged at Kiangsi (the spot in the middle of both VCs).  Begin building turn 6 Hawaii forces (air base at Hebrides/transports/men)

    And don’t forget to land air force on New Hebrides this turn if you have not already done so.

    Turn 5: redeploy fleet to Caroline or Hawaii (using Queensland naval base) for turn 6 capture of Hawaii, use the air base on New Hebrides to strike New south wales and land in Queensland, this gives you 21 or 15 air units to use with your 22 land units for the capture of New south wales depending on if you want fighters on your carriers for the Hawaii assault. Best guess for Anzac defenders is: 15-25 pieces by their fourth and final build vs Japans 37-43 pieces. I suspect that Queensland’s 22 piece land force dropped on turn 4 will endure any counterattack by anzac. If Anzac is a push over and they did not attack Queensland bring some land units from Queensland back to Caroline or Hawaii for turn 6. I really suspect that 22 land units is overkill, if 4-8 units can be sent to Hawaii, I really feel good about this plan.

    Continue building turn 6 Hawaii force, may need to redeploy units to Asia to secure win with this Japan build as well.

    Turn 6: Capture Hawaii with turn 4 build located at Caroline or Hawaii and Turn 5 build located at Japan.

    • This assumes USA was tied up successfully by German/Italian fleet in z101….if not game will take more than 6 turns. Showdown in z101 does not occur until turn 4, survivors move to Panama turn 5, Turn 6 they might counter attack Japan fleet at Hawaii (which no longer matters), but will they have the men to dislodge the land forces before Japans turn 7 declaration of a win?

    Any thoughts?
    I think the use of New Hebrides air field and bulk of Japan’s air force pretty much rules out any chance of UK/Anzac holding New South Wales, remember turn 4 USA still may not land in Australia/UK zones, Since Japan takes it before USA 5th turn, they are not able to defend, only liberate and this is unlikely due to the German presence in z101 turn 4. With 11 transports available at Caroline plus any in Japans waters a poor ally player may lose Hawaii and Australia on turn 5, giving the axis the win on Japan’s turn6. I really like tying in a fake sea lion into this plan, this gives the allies 1 less turn to counter the strategy…meaning USSR only has 5 turns to save the day in the pacific. Key to this strategy will be UK-Pacific. They will hold the cards and shape Japan’s script.

    Initial observations- China will not be able to grab a VC by turn 6 and if game goes longer, just transport from Japan to Asia as needed, you will have a transport fleet of 13-15 transports by then. The only wild card is if UK goes heavy navy extremely early on…Then you may decide to capture India instead of Hawaii as needed. This strategy if set up for a 6 turn win does not require any of the sumatra/java/borneo/celebes islands or NOs for Japan. It is also independent of a serious USSR push as such a plan would require turn 1 builds and early movement for hong kong/shanghai.


    NOTES:

    Japans first 5 Builds:
    26= 3 trn, 1 art save 1 (not sure if I want to save money for 12 transports on Queensland turn 4) collect 40+1=41
    41=5 trn, 2 inf (or 5 trn if you saved 5) collect 40
    40=4 trn, 3art (this gives 8 units to capture Hawaii, 3-Japan; 5-Kiangsi) collect 38-40
    38=1 airbase, 1trn, 1 inf, 1art save 1 (2 inf if 40) collect 37 (excludes 2 IPCs-queensland just incase asia is worse off)
    37= 3trn, 1art, 4 inf  Collect 26-ish, plus 5 NO-Sidney + Australia IPC plunder ~ 16ish for an estimate of: 43ish

    Turn 4 Queensland invasion army: 25 pieces/ 11 transports starting from Caroline to use on Queensland
    17 inf= 1 Oki,1 Iwo, 6 Japan, 4 Kor, 2 Car, 1 Pau, 2 Japan (built turn 2)=17
    3 art = 2 Japan, 1 Japan (built turn 1)= 3
    4 aagun = 3 Japan, 1 Car = 4
    1 armor = 1 Japan
    Transport Maneuvers: To support this plan
    turn 1= 2 sz6, 1 Caroline waters
    turn 2= 5 sz6, 5 Caroline waters, 1 New Hebrides waters
    turn 3= 4 sz6, 11 Caroline Waters (This is where you return from New Hebrides and grab inf-Paulau Island)
    turn 4= 1 sz6, 4 Philippine Waters, 11 Queensland Waters
    turn 5= 3 sz6, 4 Caroline (If Philippine not sunk) Water, 12 Hawaii (some go to Caroline if needed) Waters
    Alternative: Change build on turn 5 to refill Philippine transports (4) for use in Hawaii as needed/availalbe
    turn 6= 2 sz6, 2-3Kwangtung/Kiangsu waters if needed, else all loaded transports of the 19 on the board-Hawaii most are empty and may be sent elsewhere to refill (this is a lot of forcasting-results may vary)


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    @kcdzim:

    @JamesAleman:

    Still fine tuning this one, I like where it is going. Carriers being able to have air units convoy is a bit over powered I believe.

    Personally, I’m thinking I may house rule that only tac bombers can convoy raid.  Air supremacy fighters weren’t exactly the primary threat to merchant vessels and if tac bombers more or less represent heavy fighters, naval bombers, torpedo bombers, and dive bombers, it makes sense to me that the standard fighter doesn’t have that role. It also encourages (mildly) tac bomber purchases, which is good, considering a fighter is almost always a better buy in my eyes.  Would tone down this down a little, but maybe not overly.  I don’t dislike this as a rogue strategy, but yeah, it shouldn’t down right break the game.

    Totally agree Kcdzim. Much fairer and realistic.


  • TripleA

    First of all, who said you need India for a win?

    Here the thing, taking new south wales requires it to be a big surprise. That just does not happen to experience players. Then it becomes an issue of logistics and getting boatloads of men or carrier fighter groups from japan to caroline to new south wales.

    Are you skipping islands? Going the Hawaii route? Where are you spreading yourself out? Big questions to ask.

    Plus, you still ignored what I said, USA can get convoyed out of 32 ipc, it is not a big deal. How much income is Japan making without siberia or India? Russia support shows up in china then how does that work out for you?
    ~

    The reason this strategy works from time to time is because it is a big surprise. The first 3 rounds of USA naval buy is what Japan deals with on round 5/6, if things aren’t going your way, this can suck.

    I dow on Japan 1 and when I do that, usa spends full pacific, almost like clockwork.

    In anycase most people go pacific in global. Especially if you are not taking london over. It is like a no brainer.

    Also when japan rolls out to hawaii, uk pac goes to sumatra with 2 inf and air, then it can fly into west australia and hold new south wales.

    How are you making 11 transports to take anzac over without usa kickin you around? I do J1 DOW all the time, but I don’t make no 11 transports. I buy them on J1 and treasure them. How the hell are you making the income to do this?

    First of all, usa does not get convoyed till G4 and even then it is only -32 income. So unless you are making bank of SEA, india, and china shutdown by rounds 5-6, this plan sucks.
    ~

    Secondly, the anzac rush has to be a surprise. Like people have to not see it coming.

    I promise you, USA will not be afraid of a naval confrontation to save the only thing you threaten. It is just not going to be afraid.

    If germany is spending all his money on naval, good russia is not dead, not transports, good uk is not dead, full inf london r1, more inf london round 2 for safe measure, and whatever just dick around.

    Eventually japan flops and usa goes atlantic. That is just how it goes.
    ~

    I mean don’t get me wrong, rushing anzac is fun. Convoying usa is fun. Having a big naval confrontation with usa is fun.

    People have tried this strategy. It is fun. It just needs to be a surprise.



  • @Cow:

    First of all, who said you need India for a win?

    Here the thing, taking new south wales requires it to be a big surprise. I disagree here That just does not happen to experience players. If experienced players are incapable of mistake, is there a winner when 2 play against each other? Or do they just quit playing before the game ends? In addition, I am also an experienced player with games going back to 1989 in axis, plus I play face to face once a month with various players in addition to online gamesThen it becomes an issue of logistics and getting boatloads of men or carrier fighter groups from japan to caroline to new south wales.

    Are you skipping islands? Yes, see above post Going the Hawaii route? not until the end Where are you spreading yourself out? Concentrating forces actually Big questions to ask.

    Plus, you still ignored what I said, USA can get convoyed out of 32 ipc, (40 IPCs lost if you include NO) it is not a big deal. How much income is Japan making without siberia or India? 40’s Russia support shows up in china then how does that work out for you? Fine, because there will be no support with Germany outproducing USSR and going after Russia turn 4 by land

    I apologize for the appearance of ignoring your comments about the effect of a Convoy action of USA, this is the USA income if ignored based on my experience with that question. First, on turn 4 USA will not collect 2 NO’s (Philippines and Mexican) Their income OOB is 52 (-2 for Philippines). So Max income for USA (excluding a presence in France is now 77 in a3 instead of 82) 25 NOs plus the 5 NO for France = 82, but I have never seen France occupied without a win moments away.

    So lets accept 77 to be the average income. Now subtract -7 for Philippines, -8 for 2 subs at z89 and axis occupation of West Indies, and -32 for axis occupation of z101. Total income lost=-7 + -8 + -32= -47. This yields a maximum USA income of 30 IPCs if USA permits the axis occupation of z101 and z89. Are you arguing that amount of income is sufficient to destroy Japan?
    ~

    The reason this strategy works from time to time is because it is a big surprise. The first 3 rounds of USA naval buy is what Japan deals with on round 5/6, if things aren’t going your way, this can suck. That is why German/Italy engage USA. I argue that those same first 3 turns income are required to destroy the axis fleet amassed in z101, that is the premiss of this whole strategy.

    I dow on Japan 1 and when I do that, usa spends full pacific, almost like clockwork. I prefer round 2 on normal games, round 1 is not efficient for my play style

    In anycase most people go pacific in global. Especially if you are not taking london over. It is like a no brainer. True

    Also when japan rolls out to hawaii, uk pac goes to sumatra Yes with 2 inf and air, then it can fly into west australia and hold new south wales. Will not matter if Japan has 43 units to hit it with, see above post

    How are you making 11 transports to take anzac over without usa kickin you around? Germany distraction I do J1 DOW all the time, but I don’t make no 11 transports. Me either normally I buy them on J1 and treasure them. How the hell are you making the income to do this? 40,40,38,36 Are the proposed incomes first 4 rounds, I use mostly starting land forces to fill them

    First of all, usa does not get convoyed till G4 and even then it is only -32 40 income. So unless you are making bank of SEA, india, and china shutdown by rounds 5-6, this plan sucks. I disagree
    ~

    Secondly, the anzac rush has to be a surprise. I disagree Like people have to not see it coming.

    I promise you, USA will not be afraid of a naval confrontation to save the only thing you threaten. It is just not going to be afraid. USA cannot successfully attack your land forces on Queensland prior to the capture of New South Wales in the plan above, details provided

    If germany is spending all his money on naval, (Germany used 2 turns of production, the rest goes after UK/Russia) good russia is not dead, not transports, good uk is not dead, full inf london r1, more inf london round 2 for safe measure, and whatever just dick around.

    Eventually japan flops and usa goes atlantic. That is just how it goes. Normally, I agree, but are you arguing that the German diversion has no effect?
    ~

    I mean don’t get me wrong, rushing anzac is fun. Convoying usa is fun. Having a big naval confrontation with usa is fun. I agree

    People have tried this strategy. It is fun. It just needs to be a surprise. I disagree

    My responses are in red
    Thank you for your feedback

    As mentioned this strategy is still in the works, it is not perfected yet, and has not been tested against all options yet, if it ever will be. I believe I have outlined sufficient detail to warrant investigation and or play testing.

    I have a few ideas for allied counters, so this is not an I win button. It just resets the now stale format of A3…removing sea lion from the axis arsenal has just made the game boring. More options is better than fewer options in my opinion. I had sufficient counters for post sea lion in A2. Now I am helping to add options for A3 until they remove them as well. My early efforts for USA first have appeared to be countered through out the revision process (for example, the rule that permits USA DOW when Canada is occupied, etc) Just like A and A revised see 2004, A big German fleet in the Atlantic harasses both UK and USA. Add to that the change that makes carriers equal if not superior to subs at convoy and takes a simple elegant rule and adds complexity and time by requiring rolling during collect income. Oh well.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 20
  • 6
  • 3
  • 5
  • 2
  • 12
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts