What if these happen? - Extrem G1 Strategy

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

Yea, I never said it was a good strategy, but it does give you the option of really decimating the allies early on.

That’s kind of the point though.  I don’t do a Russian build of 8 infantry on Round 1 for that exact reason, having the extra tanks helps throughout the entire game in keeping Germany boxed in a little.

And if I am not hitting Ukraine, and sometimes I don’t, it’s because I am hitting Belorussia and W. Russia or just stacking W. Russia like a mad woman (expect 9 infantry, 2 artillery, 4 armor, AA Gun in W. Russia with Russia having lost 2 infantry in the attack) with 3 armor in Moscow to back them up. (This of course results in Caucasus being taken by Germany on G1, but that’s a minor nuisance in the game I think.)

That means Germany has to be able to repel 9 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 7 Armor, 2 Fighters in Karelia and I just don’t see them being able to do so.  I’m assuming 9 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 6 Armor (with none lost taking Karelia and two units transported from W. Europe to Karelia).

I have Russia surviving that attack with a 93% chance (6 Armor, 2 Fighters left.)  Now sure, Germany will have 8 Armor and their fighters to attack that, but do you really want to trade 8 Armor and some fighters against 6 armor, aa gun if England’s dumping troops into Norway (which you have to leave abandoned) or worse, invaded W. Europe with Americans ready to land next round again?

For the record, that assumes neither Ukraine nor Belorussia were taking on Russia 1 meeting Switch’s points 2 and 3 I am also assuming the Battleship off Gibraltar died with the loss of one German submarine (safe assumption) and that Egypt fell on Germany 1 leaving 1 armor behind (taking Infantry/Armor from S. Europe for the assault.)  That meets all 4 of Switch’s points.

I am also assuming England landed and liberated Egypt on UK 1 and that England sunk the SZ 5 fleet with 2 fighters, bomber (since the original poster mentioned he was moving a ship to SZ 3 to block England from softening Germany) surviving with 1 Fighter, Bomber at least and that Norway was invaded iwth 2 Infantry, 2 Armor. (England’s buy would probably be Aircraft Carrier, Submarine, 2 Infantry if SZ 5 was not attacked, 2 artillery in place of the submarine if it was attacked and cleared.)

@Aretaku:

India Destroyer to Jap Transport
Aussie Sub to Jap Sub
2 Inf from Australia to New Guinea (which can be reached)
2 Inf, 1 Fig from India to Borneo (Carrier must accompany to allow fighter to land)

If all four attacks succeed, Japan is down two ships and five IPCs, and has to think long and hard about what to kill and what to potentially let slip away. It also helps in that it keeps mainland Asia relatively calm for a round or two while Japan deals with the situation.

There are many options for Britain in the Pacific in turn one, but when this one succeeds, it can really ruin Japans day.

In may playgroup there is often a SJF (Slow Japan first approach) similar to this moves. We are also used to  stack Buryatia with 6 infantries and sending Russian infantry in Sinkiang. This togheter with the UK opening move described by Aretaku can really ruin Japanes days!

I am trying to answer to this opening in the following way:

Buy: 1 AC, 1 TRN, 1 Tank, save 1 IPC; Ignore Pearl Harbour to wipe out all the UK fleets instead; Attack UK fleet in Borneo with 1 BB, 2 Fig, 1 BMB; Attack UK DD with 1 BB 1 fig (from Japan); attack UK Sub with DD and 1 fig (from AC at Caroline) if JAp sub is gone and UK sub is alive, this should give a good chance at killing it; Attack China with 5 inf (3 from Kwantung and 2 from FIC) and the remaining two fighters;

NCM:

transport 1 inf and 1 tank in FIC; leave 2 inf in Manchuria; leave 1 AC at Caroline and the other in East Indies Sea Zone, the British Transport still alive in New Guinea can not reach East Indies or Philipphine; the surviving fighters should be landed in FIC, in sz 60, in Caroline and in East Indies if possible;
Deploy the AC and TRN in sz 60.

Apart the BB in sz59, all the other surviving ships are able to strike in solomon islands seazone with the surviving fighters. The objective of such attack should be to kill the USA TRNs slowing down the island hopping. Meanwhile, Japan should attack India and starting to unload at least 2-3 trns of troops (emptying the islands) on the mainland, buying more fighter is the priority however.
If USA do not come to Solomon the fleet in south East may be used to attack Borneo, Australia and New Zealand.

What result am I having?
The counter move is composed of 4 distinct attacks and it is difficult that all of them went always good.
Sometimes happened and I wiped all the UK Fleet with minimal losses.
Sometimes losses has been more grievous leaving the Japan weak. But if the USA player do not strike immediately in USA1, Japan may still recover consuming his revenge on UK: India, Australia, New Zealand or Madagascar are objectives for turn 2, 3 and 4 together with recapture of Borneo.
Some other times the counterattack went very bad leaving the Japan open to USA attack but… it is better to die in a blaze of glory than dying slowly each turn…

In a good KJF, Germany will be stopped before getting 50 IPC, Switch.  Any layman player who puts some thought into it can easily slow Germany enough to prevent them from being at the doorstep of Moscow before Round 10, at which point, Japan should be castrated.

The trick is to put 2-3 transports of troops into Africa a turn.  Easy to do without building a single extra transport.  Actually, odds are, you’re putting 4 transports in a round.  Maybe more, if England is focused on Africa and fighters for Russia.  America can take Japan without England’s help.  Just use the English fleet to make it near impossible to sink the American fleet and let America take the islands.

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

Right now all my expieience is coming from Xeno’s game, and the original MB game, but the principals are the same. Just need a little tinkering. I wish the Xeno game was still fun. I guess I’ll play you with the allies next time

@yamamato456:

I like that idea of a KBF in the sense that your not trying to take the capital itself only trying to wipe out its colonial IPCs.  Germany and japan help each other to take Africa and mideast.  Japan takes india, australia, and new zealand.  Depending on the situation Japan could invade canada and alaska.  All of this and maybe a G1 AC buy could put Britain nearly at the single digits.  Anyone else have some thoughts on this?  Will this leave Russia too strong?  What naval strategy (naval units bought, joining fleets or not,etc…) would you have to have in order to take out almost all of Britains colonys excluding eastern canada and britain itself?

think somewhere similar as you do :mrgreen: