Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Japan landing in western US –--- how can i do this?



  • I didn’t mean to sound mean, U-505. I too think the full canadian shield is a one trick pony, I was just pointing out that your argument that it was spending too many IPCs on navy wasn’t well-founded.  :lol:

    And before you attack Crazy Straw on the grounds that he has very few posts, remember that he is MarvinMartian of Caspian Sub, the most vocal and probably most pivotal of the CSub editors/players. He taught me just about everything I know in 3 quick, humiliating defeats close to a year ago. He’s like Yoda or Bruce Lee and I’m hairbrained Luke running around or Jackie Chan  😛

    I think even though the Canadian Shield paper might not be that useful to KGF players, it is a very important staging ground for managing the German navy in general. It opens up a lot of thought about what you can do with your German navy, and how a 2 transport buy can be an alternative to the normal carrier buy.



  • And remember too Tri that I learned from you… in just TWO games.  And since then you are winless against me 😛

    Just teasing Teammate!


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @squirecam:

    @Jennifer:

    Squire:

    Why not get the carrier, merge the fleet, move back to SZ5 (Baltic Sea) and then build transports?  Now you have a BB, CV, DD, 2 SS, 2 FIG defending.  There’s no way England/USA could stop you then.  And if they did, their fleets would be out of position for at least 2 turns giving you 3 turns to either rebuild or do serious damage to the eastern front.

    If you buy AC/trans as opposed to AC G1 and trans G3:

    1 - you force UK on R1 to defend their home. They cant have fleet+India IC+uk inf. Something usually is skipped. (I personally do something, but I feel its risky and frankly, no one plays my own strat gainst me. 🙂  )
    2 - I dont want UK/USA fleets to merge and live. I have the sea/air advantage in attacking, so why not use my offensive advantage now.
    3 - With just AC buy, UK can afford a fleet (no risk of UK invasion G2), making a G2 attack on SZ8 a no-go (28O vs 16D instead of 28O and 28D, with UK having USA trans fodder and Germany risking its air.)

    Squirecam

    You know, I havn’t seen a game where England builds an IC in India.  I wonder how that would play out???  It never worked well for me in classic (then again, neither did the IC in S Africa).

    So yes, by building a carrier with germany you force England to not build an IC in India.  I personally wouldn’t buy one anyway, because I’d want the carrier to ensure you don’t pull any luftwaffe strafing runs on my transports.

    However, you hardly have the combat advantage.  As I said in the other thread, the US is more then capable of blocking your battleship before it can join the baltic fleet.  That’ll cause a 1 round detremental delay, since 1 BB, 1 TRN is much easier to dismantle then 1 BB, 1CV, 1 DD, 2 TRN, 2 SS (or 3 SS if you don’t go to Canada).  CV, DD, 2SS, TRn, 2 FIG looses to CV, 3 TRN, BB, 2 FIG, BMB 65.4% of the time.  That’s about 50/50 in my book with any left overs being cleaned up by the DD, 1 TRN (other used to block the German fleet from leaving Med), 3 FIG, BMB from America. (US has to buy a CV for this many aircraft in the battle.)  Also, note, in the above England/Germany attack, there’s a 65.4% out of that 65.4% chance that England will retain the bomber, carrier and battleship after the battle.

    Anyway I see it, the German fleet dies in round 2 and the allies are up to full transport strength at the end of round 2.  The allies are down 2-3 fighters and a bomber maybe, but that’s easily replaced, actually.  Especially if the now weakened German forces don’t seem to be rolling exceptionally well against England and Russia allowing the United States to go reclaim Africa.

    So end scenario, most likely:

    End of Round 2:

    Brition: 3 Transports, 1 Carrier, 1 Battleship (damaged), maybe a second carrier/transport from Indian Ocean comming around Africa to help.
    America: Carrier, 2 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, Submarine, Battleship, 7 Transports
    Germany: Battleship, Transport (locked in Med, or to be sunk in Round 3)  Germany now down 1 or 2 fighters after naval battle.
    Russia: Submarine
    (Japan full strength plus whatever they built, they’re inconsequential to the Atlantic in Rounds 1-4 at least.)



  • You know, I havn’t seen a game where England builds an IC in India.  I wonder how that would play out???  It never worked well for me in classic (then again, neither did the IC in S Africa).

    I used to see this ALL the time playing against new players. It just seems so intuitive because there’s an aa gun there all ready to defend you from the mighty Japanese airforce and you want to defend India because it’s cool. I think Octo was the first player I’ve seen that intuitively AVOIDED building an IC there. Could be because of all the CSub papers or just good common sense, because ultimately your money is better spent defeating Germany quickly.

    I was randomly reading Don Moody’s papers one day and I thought an IC in India works extremely well in Classic with no bid or something? Like you would build mass tanks there and ruthlessly suicide them against Japanese incursions along the south. Apparently it doenst’ work at all with those large bids you people are used to, though.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    IC in India makes sense only because the land is worth 3 and that means you can get some actual units there.  But it’s very hard to defend and requires Russia sap infantry to move to assist, iMHO


  • 2007 AAR League

    @trihero:

    I didn’t mean to sound mean, U-505. I too think the full canadian shield is a one trick pony, I was just pointing out that your argument that it was spending too many IPCs on navy wasn’t well-founded.  :lol:

    And before you attack Crazy Straw on the grounds that he has very few posts, remember that he is MarvinMartian of Caspian Sub, the most vocal and probably most pivotal of the CSub editors/players. He taught me just about everything I know in 3 quick, humiliating defeats close to a year ago. He’s like Yoda or Bruce Lee and I’m hairbrained Luke running around or Jackie Chan  😛

    I think even though the Canadian Shield paper might not be that useful to KGF players, it is a very important staging ground for managing the German navy in general. It opens up a lot of thought about what you can do with your German navy, and how a 2 transport buy can be an alternative to the normal carrier buy.

    Oh yeah. Certainly you must have a good reason for doing a large German naval build. I was just defending my position for my CV/TP build as opposed to the Baltic buy.

    I believe Crazystraw and I are past that. I don’t doubt Crazystraw’s abilities at all. I’ve seen some pretty good stuff batted around Caspian Sub, but I just thought Canadian Shield was easy to recognize coming. I took our exchange personally and that’s a weakness with this game. I have to work on that certainly. Clear heads always prevail in A&A.

    In a KJF game it would work much better, yes. But, the UK player would almost have to be bullheaded to purchase an IC with 4-5 German TP’s in the Atlantic. That’s a lesson in Capital defense right there.

    The biggest concern I have is that a Baltic TP buy almost forces you to make the fleet consolidation in sz7. Depending on how many units would be needed to defend UK against a landing, a large UK1 air build would likely make short work of the Baltic fleet and if the German fleet merged in sz7, it might be worthwhile for the Allies to do a couple strafe attacks while the German navy is making the Channel Dash. It is situational, for sure, but I would never make a UK1 IC purchase if I saw a German TP build. I’m not sure if I would ever make an IC build. But, the GenCon and Origins tourneys definitely add a wrinkle with their point system for winning.



  • @Jennifer:

    IC in India makes sense only because the land is worth 3 and that means you can get some actual units there.  But it’s very hard to defend and requires Russia sap infantry to move to assist, iMHO

    Remember that India also has a VC there. So it is pretty intiutive that you try to deny the opponent the country. Most player will not be at a 4-8 disadvantage in VC since like any other game players dont want to appear to stand behind. Ofcourse since most are used to the russia or bust style of playing the VC is completely useless ( like all the others ) and players dont try to defend it.

    With some nice preemptive stikes against japan in turn 1 defending india becomes pretty doable for at least 3-4 turns with only minimal ( 3-4 russian troops ).



  • IIC (India Industrial Complex): The key to understanding why folks do this really comes down to format.

    Squirecam changed my mind on this to a large extent (not to the point where I favor the IIC, but to the point where it strikes me as a viable strategy in a time limited game).

    The key is this: Infantry built in Germany on round 1 attack Moscow on round 5.  That means you can’t send a wave of death at Moscow much quicker than that.

    So in a time-limited game you won’t pay the price of losing Moscow for holding the IIC with early Russian troops.

    In the long run, I think the IIC is a weak option.  But in a tournament, 1) THERE IS NO LONG RUN 2) India is worth a truckload of points.

    If we ever get around to updating some of the old papers on CSub we’ll add a section on time-limited play.

    But my general observation is that the only guys I can find that go KJF regularly are guys that play in the tournaments.  Triple A guys don’t do it either.

    Peace



  • If you are dead set on an India IC…

    Have the US do a Sinkiang IC as well, producing 1 FIG and 1 ARM a turn.
    Send available (read Novo and Evenk) Russia forces to Sinkiang for defense of the IC (arriving in R1 and R2 respectively), maybe even the Yakut forces (though those shoudl probably go to Bury for a 6 INF stack on R1)

    That will mean that Japan is going to be purely defensive for a few rounds, probably even lose 1-2 of their Asian territories befor ethey get their TRn system in place, and enough forces in their remaining territory for an IC.

    US will heave to spend their remaining $25 IPC’s on Europe in the form of land units, hoping like heck that 2 DSTs is enough to protect their TRNs from German AF.
    UK will need to have low-income builds in India, expecially once Germany starts gaining ground in Africa, so that they can maintain about 2/3 of their purchases to Europe (read 2 INF/1 ART or 2 INF/1 ARM MAX for India)

    Even with that split, Germany is going to break out for a while, especially in Africa (which is also a potential threat to the India IC…) and it will be a slow time getting Germany pinned back down.

    Can you spend that money in India and still get Germany hemmed in before Moscow falls?  With excellent play, and some good dice, yes.  Would I want to count on that as the Allies?  No.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Sounds like a KJF strat.  Russia pulls back and pumps infantry as fast as possible slowing German advance and keeping enough in combat forces to pose a threat to Europe if Germany goes whole hog on Navy meanwhile America and Brition build like mad in Asia to take and hold mainland countries while America also works on ships.  Then you can attempt to get the Jap fleet with airpower and a few subs/dds while island hopping.

    Dunno if that’d work as well.  Might.  It should slow the advance through Asia enough to let USA grab a few islands, and you only really need Phillipeans, East Indies and New Guinee to neuter Japan if they cannot break out.



  • The india IC is not a bad move in the long run either.

    But i think there is more a psychological reason to people trying to keep it then sound reasoning.
    You play for 9 VC where you both start at 6. Now we are all used to games like soccer/football where points mather a lot.
    So willing setting yourself from a 6-6 to a 5-7 situation in favor for your opponent is not something players will instinctively do. And if you read it like that is looks rather stupid right, giving your opponent a 2 point advantage.

    Also some players play a 8VC game meaning that not defending India equals losing the game. That IC there can make the difference between winning or losing the game.

    The India IC is pretty decent move if you send some russia inf down there first round ( 2 should do ).
    It enables you to produce 3 inf down there from turn 2 and that is a lot more then what is usualy produced. You can easy counter germany in afrika using US troops if needed. It does not need to be part of a KJF strategy you can just as easy go KGF with an IC in india to keep that VC yours. US troops can move through finland->karellia->WR and so on to india while defending USSR.



  • Your just not good enough to take America from me Doug…  I keep luring you in and step on your greedy hand…


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 10
  • 5
  • 28
  • 5
  • 11
  • 29
  • 77
I Will Never Grow Up Games

38
Online

13.3k
Users

33.5k
Topics

1.3m
Posts