Japan's super economy -the end of the world?

Cow

^ yes it is mentioned a few times. I do have an allies playbook which mentions this.

It is a fairly common strategy. However if Japan chooses to hold on to what it has instead of going after India. You lose Russia before it happens. Proper naval positioning and air thwarts it. As long as Japan plays tight he can make the big bucks for awhile.

Generally you throw everything at Japan, ANZAC, China, UK Pacific, Siberia. You hope to inflict enough loses on Japan’s part soon enough that he loses. If Egypt is already gone… you lose when Russia falls. :(

Spendo02

So to throw some Allied IPC investment requirements in the European Theater:

What we know is that small invasions aren’t necessarily successful in the long term except in the cases of:
1. Landing some units on N.Africa via Morocco to help secure Egypt if Italy has a somewhat to very successful Northern Africa campaign
2. Seizing Norway and denying Germany the NO.

So to set some parameters:
1. London can churn out 10 units / round to shuck into Normandy. This puts the critical mass of TT at 5, or a 35 IPC investment. This initial investment can be mitigated depending on if the UK can save its two TT. So UK investment in TT for critical mass is 21-35 IPC depending on Germany Round 1 results.

2. US needs at a minimum of 10 TT for an initial landing. This will allow for the US to land with 20 ground units, reinforced by 10 UK ground units in the same round for a total of 30 ground units in Normandy. This will cost the US 70 IPC for the initial landing.

3. In order to maintain the supply lines and hence reinforcements, both the US and UK will each need a fleet to protect their TT investments. The recommendation has been suggested to defend the landings with CV + Ftr and DD as screens. Bombardments don’t seem as valuable in Europe as they do in the Pacific where you’re likely using less ground units on an AA, so I agree with not investing in BB/CR to screen CV or add additional punching power to an AA landing. With that said, I think the decision needs to come down to how many CV are sufficient to support two separate locations where TT will be massing (Off Gib and in the Channel). I’m going to posit that you’d need 3 total for the Allies, where you position yourself based off of Axis Air/Naval Power.

This means 48 IPC of CV. In order to secure the decks, you’re going to need 60 IPC of Ftr. This can be partially offset by the UK and French if you elect to not scramble on G1 and save yourself the equivalent of an entire UK IPC purchase round in Ftr by doing so. So CV + Loaded Ftr is going to cost you at most 108 IPC at at a minimum of 68 IPC if you elect to preserve the starting Ftr in and around London.

4. DD screens appear to be the flavor of choice. I’d wager the safest way to screen yourself is to match the Axis Air / Naval Power with DD on a 1:1 ratio. So for every German Ftr/Tac/Bomber in range, you’ll need 1 DD to absorb a hit while your Ftr slowly grind them out. Same would go for Axis naval presence, particularly SS on a 1:1 ratio. This number can vary greatly, and may not be significantly required for an initial landing if German aircraft are deep in Moscow and out of range. Still, I’d suggest at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio of DD per every CV and Ftr in your Naval stacks. So at a minimum you are looking at a total of 9 DD or 72 IPC worth of DD with no threat present, and in excess of 100 IPC if there are Axis warships or aircraft within striking distance. As this can be split between the UK, and the UK has a “closer” complex right there in London you can merge up on, I’d suggest London do the bulk of the DD purchases.

5. Now that the support is covered for the initial invasion force, you need to consider the actual ground units. The US is going to have at a minimum of 20 units put on 10 TT to land. I’ve found the best investment to be Inf/Art. So for 10 TT that means 70 IPC worth of units for the US. As the UK is in more of a reinforcing position, you have two choices early in Normandy: 10 Inf on 5 TT or 5 Inf, 5 Arm on 5 TT. I do like the Arm option as it gives a bit more of a defensive “ooomph” to an Axis counter attack that may have a decent amount of German Armor in it. Just realize it costs you 30 IPC (which is most of the UK income in 1 turn) to fill 5 TT with. You set yourself back “half a turn” by adding Arm instead of simply doing 10 Inf. Conveniently, the UK will probably be in a position to fill 5 TT with 10 Inf rather easily if the UK purchased 6 of them and 1 Ftr on UK1 to guard against a potential Sea Lion. So you can be “efficient” and kill 2 birds with one purchase that pays dividends later.

6. As you cannot settle for simply the landing itself, you are going to need to prepare the US to start a ferry of new units into Normandy in the successive rounds. This is going to require 5 more TT in the next 3-4 rounds, which you will also have to fill with either Inf, Inf/Art or Inf/Arm to ferry first to Gib, then to Normandy. In short you’re going to need a rotation of 4 sets of 5 TT:
5 TT off Washington DC to start your turn, that you fill with ground units and move to Gib.
5 TT that you move from Gib to Washington DC for next turn’s ground units.
5 TT returning from Normandy to Gib to move to Washington to stage for ground unit pickup Turn+1
5 TT moving from Gib to Normandy to drop off ground units.

Now, you DO have 10 TT from the initial landing, but I have a recommendation that you actually keep those 10 TT off Normandy as if the Germans make a mistake, the US and UK can leapfrog Denmark to Berlin at any given point and you’d rather have the ability to vacate Normandy with 20 US ground units, sack Denmark and open the door to go for the throat in Berlin than to wish you hadn’t sent those TT back to America for more units and lost the opportunity to bring the Germans to their knees.

So, that means once you’ve committed to the landing in Normandy, Turn+3 will require full IPC investment into the Atlantic to establish a system that grinds the Axis down. You need to consider that when you start the invasion in regards to where Japan is positioned. If you interrupt this influx of reinforcements, you may risk everything you built and gained up to this point if you give the Axis a reprieve from the pressure.

So to summarize the initial landing cost:
15 TT = 105 IPC
3 CV = 48 IPC
6 FTR = 20-60 IPC
9 DD = 72 IPC
15 INF = 45 IPC
10 ART = 40 IPC
5 ARM = 30 IPC

Which puts you between 360-400 IPC for an initial landing.
*There is one variable is UK Ftr landing on Normandy. Which the cost is variable based on how soon the UK gets up to speed and can purchase additional Ftr to secure Normandy. From my experience this could be supplemented directly from the FTR on the CV, but if under threat you may be required to safeguard the TT and require additional FTR flying in from London to support Normandy. Anything less than 4 FTR appears insufficient, but much of that is highly dependent on the counter attack you will face from Italy / Germany.

You’ll need additional investment of another 20 TT for the US over the successive 3-4 turn, which runs 140 IPC.

You’ll also need to fill those TT each (Both UK and US) round going forward for the foreseeable future, which this cannot be completely interrupted.

You must deal with Japan early, or not at all. Once you begin the invasion you cannot flip flop for at least 3-4 turns on heavy investments between the Atlantic and Pacific. You’re better off delaying a landing in Normandy by a turn to ensure the US has the assets in the Pacific to stymie Japan for a few rounds.

This is also why I don’t aggressively pursue Japan out the gate as the US. I’d rather have the resources in the mid game to keep Japan at bay until I can start splitting investments between the Pacific and Europe again.

Thoughts, feedback, critiques?

gamerman01

I’ll admit I haven’t read all that, sorry, but

I have had a lot of success with small American presence in Europe, and not just securing Gibraltar/Morocco/Norway but Normandy and Holland.
Apparently you have experience with Axis players who really prepare hard for the Normandy landings, but more often than not (and I play a lot of top players) Germany/Italy has minimal defenses prepared for Allied landings - they are focusing on Egypt/Middle East/Russia.
With the ability of the UK to immediately follow up American landings, not many Americans are needed. Have a lot of fighters and infantry (4-5 UK transports?) ready to reinforce. Trading with Germany is great too, you don’t necessarily need a permanent landing in Normandy to be successful. Shucking more units to London from East Canada can resupply the transports quickly. USA transports in 110 can be used by UK units too.

My main point is, I have never made anywhere near the massive investments in the Atlantic with USA you are talking about, but have still had great success. In fact, it is not uncommon that I liberate France before round 10 (and I think most players are too hesitant to liberate Paris, another discussion). I think the differences in our opinions/experiences is probably largely due to the fact that we are facing different players and strategies.

ItIsILeClerc

Great breakdown Spendo02!
Did you take into account all the allied starting units (especially land/air units the USA starts with)? The allies also get 3INF from Brazil. All those units do not have to be paid for, ofc.

I notice we use largely the same allied tactics in the Atlantic except for a few things I’d like to share (as thoughts, not critique ;-)):

You could have 2CV+4FTR instead of those 9DD. DD’s are only protecting the fleet and nothing else. CV+FTR are good for many other things! You’ll need some DD ofc to be able to combat axis SUBs (if any) but that’s it. The allies should be able to preserve and consolidate a few DD from those they start with but because those are hopelessly out of position first few turns I usually buy 1 or 2 just to be sure. My rationale is that the allies can take a few CV/air losses IF the axis attack the fleet because after the smoke vanishes, all the axis air is gone anyway and the allies should be left with at least 3CV + 6FTR. But… since the axis never attack the fleet under those circumstances… those 4 extra FTR add a lot to the allied attack options.
I have found out that instead of building up the TRS-rotation, building up a bomber fleet and using the IC’s in Normandy and Southern France for production of land units for a little while also works great.

I must admit I used to set up a TRS rotation with the USA, channeling an extra 10 land units into Europe per turn. But, after our group got more experience playing Japan this seemed to become untenable.
True to the title of the topic, we experienced large problems with the USA once Japan settles their super economy: with Calcutta gone and Japan making ~90IPCs/turn focusing heavily on also wrestling Hawaii/Sydney from allied control, the USA needed to stop investing in the Atlantic completely. A 6VC Japanese Pacific win must be prevented. True wargamers as we are, we hated to see those empty US TRS, rotating only rats and breadcrumbs in the Atlantic.

And that’s where those bombers come in handy: they will still be effective if US Atlantic investments bled dry. They will add tremendous attack power everywhere on the European board due to their long range (stationed in Paris, UK bombers Â can attack together with ground troops to kill a huge Japanese stack advancing into the Middle east), and as long as the axis cannot be attacked because they have their defenses in place, their ICs can be raided every turn to reduce German and Italian income by 20IPCs and 6IPCs respectively.

ItIsILeClerc

@Gamerman01:

I’ll admit I haven’t read all that, sorry, but

I have had a lot of success with small American presence in Europe, and not just securing Gibraltar/Morocco/Norway but Normandy and Holland.
Apparently you have experience with Axis players who really prepare hard for the Normandy landings, but more often than not (and I play a lot of top players) Germany/Italy has minimal defenses prepared for Allied landings - they are focusing on Egypt/Middle East/Russia.
With the ability of the UK to immediately follow up American landings, not many Americans are needed. Â Have a lot of fighters and infantry (4-5 UK transports?) ready to reinforce. Â Trading with Germany is great too, you don’t necessarily need a permanent landing in Normandy to be successful. Â Shucking more units to London from East Canada can resupply the transports quickly. Â USA transports in 110 can be used by UK units too.

My main point is, I have never made anywhere near the massive investments in the Atlantic with USA you are talking about, but have still had great success. Â In fact, it is not uncommon that I liberate France before round 10 (and I think most players are too hesitant to liberate Paris, another discussion). Â I think the differences in our opinions/experiences is probably largely due to the fact that we are facing different players and strategies.

Interesting strategy Gamerman01…
I’ll certainly give that a try someday. I think this will more often than not come down to a war of attrition between Germany and UK (mainly)?
What would be your minimum/maximum American presence and at what time (turn)?

I must admit I am indeed hesitant to liberate Paris if this would mean trading that City over and over again with the Germans/Italians because that would just give the axis an extra +18IPCs income every turn.

The only thing I am a little scared of, is Germany postponing the final assault on Russia a few turns to build up defenses that are more dangerous with a minimal American presence. Or can you say from experience that the UK is capable enough to handle that and start the attrition war anyway?

Spendo02

I take Paris when Italy has been neutered and I can land units on Holland to threaten WGr. Germans have problems taking out two stacks. One in Paris that is UK/US and one that is generally UK on Holland.

gamerman01

Minimum force I like to have with USA in Atlantic is a transport, destroyer and a couple ground units, a bomber and a fighter. No reason to have less than that. Bomber threatens to disable West Germany airbase, fighter/bomber/destroyer threatens to take Denmark against a full scramble, making Germany conservatively protect Berlin.

That’s MINIMUM, of course. I normally have at least twice that, and ASAP (you asked what round). This depends a lot on when Japan declares war, as to when USA can get to the European theater, so I would just say ASAP.

Is nice to have a tac in/around London too, to threaten the airbase and shield the Strat bomber from AA.

Again, a minimal USA presence greatly improves UK’s threat level.

cyanight

@ItIsILeClerc:

I must admit I am indeed hesitant to liberate Paris if this would mean trading that City over and over again with the Germans/Italians because that would just give the axis an extra +18IPCs income every turn.

It also resets the ownership of Normandy and Southern France to France. So if USA or UK were building there then they cant anymore.

ItIsILeClerc

Good point Cyanight. A very good reason to consider waiting one or two turns.
While we’re at it, be sure to have enough american troops on the beaches to take Denmark (and Norway if not already in permanent posession) when Paris is liberated. And the UK must maintain a full load of INF+ART for all its transports. Otherwise the threat on Berlin is removed the moment the allies move everything into Paris.

cyanight

If Japan DOW on round 1 they will not be able to take India until round 4 or later. They will have a difficult time taking India on round 4 unless Japan buys 3 fighters on round 3 in FIC. So if they are in position to get 98% or greater on India turn 4 do you retreat the Indians? Japan needs their air force to take India but can they keep India once they take it if India retreated. Those planes will have to move back to the fleet if USA has a comparable force in Queensland on Turn 5 or later.

Blocking Japan from India/Australia if they DOW turn 1. (Assume no units at Caroline and bulk of fleet in Philippines)

Round 1
UK
DD from SZ39 to sz37 (Block at Malaya)
CA from SZ39 to sz42 (Block at Java)
DD from SZ71 to sz58 (Prepare for block in sz38)

France
DD from SZ72 to sz58 (Prepare for block in sz41 Sumatra)

ANZAC
CA from SZ63 to sz45 (Block at Dutch New Guinea)
DD from SZ62 to sz34 (Block at Palau Island)
Buy a DD round 1

USA
CA from SZ26 to sz54
DD from SZ26 to sz54 (Prepare for block in sz55)
Sub from SZ26 to sz54
Transport 2inf to Queesnland
DD, CA, BB, CV, FT, TAC to SZ26
Transport Inf+AAA gun to Hawaii

Round 2
UK
DD from SZ58 to sz38 (Block in sz38)

France
DD from SZ58 to sz41 (Block in sz41 Sumatra)

ANZAC
DD from SZ62 to sz45 (Block in sz45 Dutch New Guinea)

USA
DD from SZ54 to sz55 (Block in sz55)
DD, CA, BB, CV, FT, TAC to SZ54
Transport Inf+AAA gun to Queensland
If Japan has no Transports in range of Hawaii fly fighters to Queensland.

Cow

Well Japan DOW 1 is super common and frequent. I do not know who threatens Hawaii with it…. so you can pretty much rule that out. I have not done J2 DOW in over a year now and losing with the axis is rare for me.

You should not be losing India against a J2 DOW either before round 4. Generally speaking Japan takes India rounds 4-6 depends on how much pressure USA/China/ANZAC/Russia are applying.

~

The best thing you can do against any Japan player is to make sure is to force japan to do 1 big battle by presenting multiple battles on the same round. Like shove Russia into Korea and USA on Japan waters and China shoving and anzac taking what islands he can and UK moving in. This forces Japan to pick a battle and give up the rest.

The real problem is if the allies go Pacific hard… Germany takes Russia on round 6… at that point you have to have the Pacific situation handled, because you have to stop the Europe win at this point with UK and USA. Ideally you want India to replace Russia. Germany just has minors in Russia so UK minors + India is a good substitute for Russia. USA can pressure the Atlantic.

If you lost Egypt to Italy already… well you lost Europe, even if you went atlantic Germany would G6 Russia anyway, as long as Germany buys pure mech/armor rounds 2-3, then air rounds 4-5 it has enough to all in Russia. Italy has to defend Europe for Germany, it is okay to lose west Germany/Norway/Normandy, just have to hold Germany, can get everything back after Russia is dead.

Cow

Russia being weak is a pretty big flaw to this game. I wish Russia started the game with an extra unit, being a bomber to give it some options, it is also helps Russia defend on the last battle, it is just like having 1 more infantry, because it dies in the first round of dice rolling so an infantry that would have died would be alive and rolling.

Bids are best spent in the middle east. So the only games we saw the Russia bomber active was in Garg’s tournament. The Axis saw more victories despite the additional unit and the bids were around 10 ipcs additional for the allies. Towards the end the allies bid got bigger.

When it comes to defending and attacking capitals every little bit counts, you want your full potential present, because failure means defeat for either side.

The axis have a tremendous advantage because Japan is going to blow up, I make around 60 ipcs after round 3, so you cannot ignore me in the pacific. Then I got Germany going all in on Russia every game. I take Russia G6 or G7 or bust.

If I try to play an income game with the axis after round 3-4 I am caught up with the allies income. I am just expanding everywhere. I only do this if I see split buys coming out of USA and I expect to own Egypt and the middle east (buy bombers with Germany round 2 if I have to and swing in on egypt or if I own southern france I can pitch in some naval). It is really hard for the allies to take back the income advantage after that. As long as I do not go crazy with Japan it works out.

ItIsILeClerc

To answer Cyanight’s question:
I will always retreat the indians once Japan has a very good chance of destroying that army with a lot of survivors. Now if the Indians could destroy 10+ Japanese aircraft I wouldn’t be so sure to retreat, but I have never faced that particular situation before.

Moving past the opening 4 turns of the game into the late game (turn 8+). Why I think the Japanese super economy isn’t the end of the world, as long as the allies keep their military alive and aim for economic equality at least:

Basically with the allies being strong in Europe (but still able to defend Sydney and Hawaii), Japan will get to that high income. What can happen? Out of my personal experience, assuming Germany will defend adequately against the western allies every turn (i.e. stop focussing on Russia):

Japan gan go 100% into trying to take Hawaii/Sydney. The USA must thwart this by most likely invest 100% in the Pacific from now on. Is this the end of the world for the allies? I daresay no, as this is the moment that Paris can be liberated so France can take over the role from the USA in Western Europe of producing defending units. Meanwhile, Russia is at liberty to choose who and where to start attacking and the UK can put some spare resources into the Middle East and start pushing eastwards, ultimately taking back Calcutta.
Japan can defensively deal with the Russian/UK threat on its western perimeter by investing ~30% of their income per turn for this theatre. This will also free up 30% of the USA’s income to either:
- outproduce Japan on the Pacific itself and start taking back crucial islands (DEI, NG, DNG)
- keep producing in Europe to tip the balance into allied favor faster.
Japan can very offensively deal with the UK in the ME and defend its western perimeter against Russia. This will free up even more resources for the USA to invest offensively into either Europe or the Pacific itself.
Japan can build many TRS and place them so that multiple targets are threatened at once to keep the allies guessing where they will invade. This I think is the most dangerous option and it will initiate a deadly tango between the IJN and the USN where the USN must be prepared to retake what the IJN conquered, or, if it can’t, take another VC or resource-rich area (like the Philippines if Japan takes Sydney) and it must be able to keep doing that: take out a Japanese VC/resource every time the IJN takes an allied one. Since Japan invested quite some resources into transports (not to mention that taking Sydney should deliver a crippling blow to the IJN), the USN should have the upper hand in warships and air, and after a while the UK should be able to retake Calcutta as well. Like I said before, I think this is the most dangerous option for both sides, as 1 little mistake in maneuvering the IJN or USN can be fatal for the axis as well as for the allies!
? (I may have missed an option).

The alternative, as Cow stated, is Germany keep focussing on Russia.
Moscow may or may not fall, depending on the amount of UK forces in Moscow. The UK must aid Moscow to at least make a German victory here a pyrrhic one (loosing at least 75% of the Luftwaffe).
In my own (humble) experience, this is bad for the Axis. Berlin will be at very high risk all the time and West Germany will fall into allied hands very quickly (US3 if japan DOWed early, US4/5 depending on how long Japan postponed) followed by Northern Italy and ultimately Rome, 2/3 turns after West Germany fell… Even with Moscow in German hands Germany will not have more than 35 IPCs to spend and Japan can have as much as 98IPCs/turn, totalling 133max. The allies however, will have 45IPCs (UK) + 16IPCs (France) + 95IPCs (USA) + 8IPCs (ANZAC) = 164IPCs.
This alone means doom for the Axis already but it gets worse: Germany, desperately defending Berlin, will also very soon loose the Balkans + Leningrad and all area’s around this City. With Germany isolated or even destroyed, the allies can gang up against Japan, even liberating Moscow again.

Even with 98IPCs/turn (at its very maximum expansion), defending these thousands of miles of territory, is too much for Japan if the allies are still at equal or higher income as the axis…

Cow

It is extremely hard to fail a G6 or G7 all in Germany VS Russia. you need about 10 fighters from outside at least.

It is worth the risk. G6 is when I build defenses since I am attacking Russia. USA 1-5 is pretty weak and easy to defend against with just Italy.

G7 is when I am bringing the finland/norway units over and buying mech/armor for an additional round. This is done very rarely for me… like when I use germany to do middle east / africa business.

theROCmonster

@Cow:

It is extremely hard to fail a G6 or G7 all in Germany VS Russia. you need about 10 fighters from outside at least.

It is worth the risk. G6 is when I build defenses since I am attacking Russia. USA 1-5 is pretty weak and easy to defend against with just Italy.

G7 is when I am bringing the finland/norway units over and buying mech/armor for an additional round. This is done very rarely for me… like when I use germany to do middle east / africa business.

Your insight into the expert side of the game is spot on Cow!

ItIsILeClerc

@Cow:

It is extremely hard to fail a G6 or G7 all in Germany VS Russia. you need about 10 fighters from outside at least.

It is worth the risk. G6 is when I build defenses since I am attacking Russia. USA 1-5 is pretty weak and easy to defend against with just Italy.

G7 is when I am bringing the finland/norway units over and buying mech/armor for an additional round.Â This is done very rarely for me… like when I use germany to do middle east / africa business.

Well, thank you!
I mean, I don’t find it too hard to make Germany fail this German all-in against Moscow, so I guess I can take this as a compliment ;-).

Seriously, you are right about those outside FTR/TAC, but why would that be extremely hard? Especially considering the UK/France start the game with what, 11 or 12 aircraft already…
I know people rarely do it but I can tell it’s a must indeed and not at all so difficult for the UK to do. It sure requires planning ahead and a little practice. And I am not saying Germans won’t take Moscow if they persist. But the price will be too high for them if they do. They can have it with 1 land unit and 4 aircraft left. Or, if you wish, 5 land units and no aircraft left… Whatever. The UK must be aware of the German focus and needs to focus on that same spot too.

US1-5 is indeed not at its peak, but from Gibraltar/London the allies can seriously attack Rome, Berlin (leapfrog trick) and/or everything in between. Apart from the escort fleet (CV + air) + air, combined allies are threatening with fully loaded 6TRS(US3), 8TRS(US4), 12TRS(US5), 16TRS(US6). Italy can never defend all crucial areas against this.

The best thing Germany can do is reinforce the west and try to postpone the assault on Moscow for a later time. But… (see my larger previous post for that option)…

Cow

It is true You can get UK air units into Russia. From scotland or london -> africa uk 2 after no sealion detection africa -> egpyt uk3 Egypt to persia UK 4 then Russia UK 5 in time to defend.

What is that like 4 fighters? Plus India and existing middle east fighters? That is about 9. This is all assuming Japan did not murder the fighters or Italy. Then you just need 1 round of fighter buys in persia.

This is not taking into consideration the possibility of Japan bombing Russia, Italy bombing Russia, or Germany bombing Russia. Which are all possibilities. In which case Russia still has difficulties holding up depending on how the dice rolls out. Bombing can go really bad from multiple 1s or really good with actual bombings.

knp7765

If any or all of the Axis start bombing Russia, do you use those Allied fighters for interceptors?
So often I find using interceptors tends to bite me in the butt. The dang attacking bombers end up getting one or even more “1s” and my fighters get bupkiss.
However, if there are a lot of fighters sitting there, it may just scare off potential bomber attacks.

Cow

The bombings tend to happen on rounds 3 or 4 if at all. At this point not much allies fighters are available.

ItIsILeClerc

@knp7765:
Interceptors indeed often scare off potential bombers. There can be between 12 - 17 FTR in Moscow so any raiders usually think twice before coming in.
In case they come anyway, Japanese/Italian bombers I intercept if their anticipated damage would be worse than loosing a FTR (i.e. costing the Russian production 3 INF, so 10 or more damage on the IC). With both Japanese and Italians able to raid I auto-intercept one of them but with an overkill of air in Moscow you could forget about what is the best way to do it and just intercept all of them.
German air will be a bit different, since air they loose during raids will also not participate during the actual assault on Moscow. So usually it is better to intercept because Germans will loose more air to combined interception + AAA-fire. If they loose 4-5 bombers/escorts versus 1-2 allied FTR I think that’s worth it.
I wholeheartedly agree with Cow about how raiding can sting both sides beyond belief. Doing it once or twice, especially in Moscow is a gamble, doing it consistently turn after turn (like Berlin, West Germany, Northern Italy and Rome) is more of a calculation about damage dealt versus the average expected shot down bombers/escorts/interceptors.

My favorite flight paths for UK FTR into Moscow are:

London->Scotland/Norway->Nenetsia->Moscow.
London->Algeria/French West Africa->Egypt (after attacking something in Med/Africa)->(NW)Persia->Moscow.
SA->Egypt (possibly after attacking Italians south of Egypt)->(NW)Persia (possibly after attacking Italians in Med/Africa)->Moscow.
Calcutta->(NW)Persia->Moscow.

The UK/France start the game with 10 FTR/TAC. They can all reach Moscow in time. UK1 builds 1 FTR which can also be there in time. UK2 can build 2 or even 3 FTR if need be, which will be there in time. UKP can build 1, 2 or even 3 FTR, depending on the Japanese pressure on its economy. Given a J1 DOW, this will be only 1 FTR but this will also give the USA 3 more fully loaded TRS in Europe (thus starting with 9@Gibraltar in US3, see my previous post).

So a total of 17 FTR/TAC maximum can fly into Moscow for help. As this is surely an overkill, I usually stick with just a 12 maximum. Less if I see Germany backing off (building troops for Western Europe instead of only the GE4&GE5 air).
Heck, even the 3 ANZAC FTR can get there in time so the total can even be as much as 20 FTR maximum…

I guess the only dilemma for the allies would be what do they want to protect ‘at all costs’. Would they rather protect Calcutta or Moscow?
Personally I prefer to protect Moscow because Russia (with spread communism in Africa) can retain an income of about 18IPCs while UKP retains nothing if Japan convoys it. Moscow needs protection anyway because Germany can NOT be allowed to take it with like 30 surving units. That would seriously be game over IMHO. Therefore I defend Calcutta for as long as I can win the battle there and then retreat everything into the ME. If/when Japan marches into Persia/Iraq I have a nasty surprise for it: SAfrican/ME/Indian veterans counterattacking with the help of a LOT of air. Even Bombers stationed in Paris (should be about 5 or 6) can reach…

On a sidenote,
a friend of mine defends Moscow differently. With the UK he builds 2 ICs in Iraq + Persia ans starts pouring land units into Russia. I don’t think I ever built more than 1 IC in the region (Egypt) but that’s a different story!

Japan's super economy -the end of the world?

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Creative Japan Strategies

Russia/Japan neutrality pact

You're America, you've been J1 DoW'd, what now…

Questions on how to play Japan

Japan sacking Egypt

U.S. Pacific

UK Indian Ocean Fleet Strategy, the end of Japans dominance

Russia's National Objective Met by Declaring War on Japan?

30

17.0k

39.3k

1.7m