The METT Principle to killing Italy before it does anything

@JDOW:

@taamvan:

Malaya is too vulnerable, and it takes too long to secure.   HK is far stronger for your later-game strategic defense (free NB), hidden square)

The opposite is the case for Malaya. Yes, it is vulnerable but strategically Malaya is the by far most powerful IC Japan can place.

I think you’re taking FIC as a given there. I can’t see how the Malaya IC is more powerful than FIC. Doesn’t need a naval base built to reach Calcutta?

@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…

You also need to keep an eye on those Japanese transports and make sure that they won’t outflank you by taking the capital. Always a tricky balance.

@Young:

@UKMaverick:

By leaving the UK boats alone after the Taranto raid, isn’t this detrimental to Italy in regards to the convoy zone? Can they afford to lose the max amount of IPCs by not attacking the Brits? I realize the French boats can escape into the Atlantic or hit your remaining fleet off of Rome, but you can still scramble there. I tried YG’s Italian move after being decimated R1 in Taranto and off of Malta then was convoyed so I didn’t really make any money. Just looking for more opinions on this. Thanks as always.

The Axis must try to control the Med Sea, even if Taranto gets smashed, and even if the idea of controlling Egypt is lost… because if the Med Sea belongs to the Allies, Rome will soon follow.

Understandable, I guess I was just curious if the Italians should take it out even if for example a loaded carrier and a destroyer is remaining after Taranto? After you hit southern France’s boats you’re virtually left with A couple boats anyways, and you bank around 16/17 IPCs depending on what you attack, not 7ish. Let the French escape or come in to try and wipe the rest of the Italian fleet out? I don’t know honestly. This is my first game with the axis using the 2nd edition setup. It’s only round 2 and I feel Germany and Italy are both weak and not in position to do a successful push into Russia by say round 3. I could be wrong since I’m normally a Debbie downer ha.

Is for gameplay first but history two, the Italian is not prepare for this war and Russia two. Is simple and give a little more time for Italy. I repeat  i dont playtest this rules.

I think that UK has the advantages in the Mediterranean, and that Italy won’t have Egypt when the US comes in.

However, I have seen it all when it comes to rolls in the Med. I’ve seen all Italian naval units lost, save 1 transport, for 1 British destroyer lost.
I have also seen the reverse. So if Italy gets good rolls they can be a superpower. But if not, they’re in trouble.

If the US is forced to split it’s income their could come a time where it could haved saved the day at Hawaii or get much needed support to a victory city in Europe but it’s hands will have been tied because of polictial rules and the Axis will win.

To be honest I don’t really want to win that way.  I respect your position but I do disagree with it.  I would love to see the Axis made a little stronger but I am actually feel pretty comfortable with the USA staying as is for the most part.

japan can kill anzac first easily. however it is not a good move. it takes a lot of turns to send your fleet down there and back again. the usa can then liberate anzac on the way to the indies.