Vann Himself wrote:
I chose Japan because they are usually more flexible and as long as you hold asia, island hopping isn’t really a threat to your economy.
I have to disagree with that. Island hopping can devistate Japan. I’ve said this a couple of times and I’ll reiterate my points.
First, it puts a navy on Japan’s door step, and gives allied players another foothold for Asia. Not the biggest advantage but it helps a little.
Second, it is very easy for the UK to put an IC on Australia (even easier if WE is taken and the US is moving in on Germany, so your on the defencive in Europe) and grab at least two islands form the start. Since it’s difficult to reinforce islands effectivly, you usally only have to take out one inf. A ftr and 2 inf can usally handle this threat.
Third, it draws attention away from Asia. If Japan doesn’t reinforce their navy in the south pacific (esspecialy against an IC in Australia), they will wind up with a broken or, worse, no navy, which opens the door for invation. So, Japan is forced to spend money on a navy, taking money from the mainland, which is a plus as it slows the drive to Moscow. That could mean death for Germany right there.
Finally, if you take all the islands, you steal 8 IPCs from Japan every turn. That is VERY difficult to retake on mainland Asia, as the territories average around 2-3 each. So you need to take something like 3-4 territories just to make up for the loss. Plus it provides a nice boost for the Allied nation(s) that occupy the islands.
So, thats my two cents.
Oh, and I like Germany the best
I often remember that all the dirty tricks and annoying habits do result often in a higher winning percentage. Do the players that you are matched up against, simply irritate to throw you off your game? I am reminded on one such case where I went up against a fellow Axis and Allies player that couldn’t stop talking. I’m serious; the whole ordeal was simply excruciating, and this coming from a guy that usually kept to himself! Every single move I made, whether it was simply placing my units or routinely refilling my transports, he would question and nitpick at it. Always pressuring you to hurry up and end your move, whereupon the start of his, he would spend 5 minutes intentionally pondering on what to purchase.
Did he win? You sure bet he did. And it was not the fact that he was a better player tactical wise, but because he could convince you to reconsider your own sound moves and making senseless judgment errors. I still believe that the 99% of all Axis and Allies players are fine, upstanding individuals, but there are just some people who will go to any level to win. And when you go up against these like, question yourself if the game is really worth playing against him.
So, Italiansarecoming!!, you posted this thread back in April/May. What actually happened? You ought to have reported on this by now.
My prediction is if the Axis player knows what he is doing he should have won. In the early part of the game the Axis can win. If the game goes on a long time then the Allies will win.