Jap transport bid

@DarthMaximus:

That isn’t really true.  One of the benefits of the Polar Express is the element of surprise.  Japan can play an absolute normal looking go after Russia strat early only they can shift to Polar Express. 
Consider this, within the first 2-3 turns, Japan has at least 1 IC, and 4-5 trans.  An Asia Shuck usually has 1 trn going around getting Aus, NZ then HI and the other 4 trns are doing a 2x2 combo with 4 units to Bury and 4 units to Fic.  Well in this case all Japan needs to do, is when they plan to take HI, just drop off the 8 units to Bury instead of the split.  Now 10 units can hit WCan it this took absolutely no planning by Japan.

@Hobbes:

If the US player ignores the 7 transports at range of Alaska/W. Can then he just make a serious mistake.

If the US is already paying attention to 7 transports then he will pay attention to those 5, specially if Hawaii has been attacked and there’s a J fleet there and J just decided to change its unloading routine.

If playing against anyone who has never faced or heard about this strategy, J will have the element of surprise. But if you’re into surprising unexperienced players there are plenty of ways to do so.

Perhaps it is better to ask: can this strategy work against opponents who have successfully countered it in the past?

You are not going to surprise anyone with a traditional JTDTM anyway, and JTDTM means 50% of axis wins and also needs speed to work. My win ratio with Polar Express is better than with JTDTM

If you don’t try, you will never know if works or not. The same applies for a balanced approach with allies (the so-called KJF)  :wink:

@Funcioneta:

You are not going to surprise anyone with a traditional JTDTM anyway, and JTDTM means 50% of axis wins and also needs speed to work. My win ratio with Polar Express is better than with JTDTM

If you don’t try, you will never know if works or not. The same applies for a balanced approach with allies (the so-called KJF)  :wink:

Out of the hundreds of games I’ve played both board and online I’ve seen opponents trying this strategy  and I lost once or twice but in all other attempts it failed because I was aware of it.

This is called learning from other people’s mistakes, if you see someone pointing a loaded gun at his own head and pulling the trigger you don’t need to try it yourself to know it is a bad idea.

But if it is so effective why don’t you see players complaining more and more on the Revised forums about it? People desperate about tips on how to counter that crazy Japanese strat that defeats the US.

Funny how that doesn’t happen… ;)

@Hobbes:

This is called learning from other people’s mistakes, if you see someone pointing a loaded gun at his own head and pulling the trigger you don’t need to try it yourself to know it is a bad idea.

But if it is so effective why don’t you see players complaining more and more on the Revised forums about it? People desperate about tips on how to counter that crazy Japanese strat that defeats the US.

First, that’s a extreme comparation (the gun vs the Polar Express, I’m not going to die if I lose one A&A game, and it’s not a 100% lose if I try Polar Express while the gun in the head is so). Is irrelevant for this talk

But the effect if more people would try Polar Express and work would not be complainings: people simply would cease doing KGF all the time and start making a balanced approach, because a allied Pacific fleet cancels any chance of Polar Express. I guess also bids would be down to 3-5 as much

@Funcioneta:

@Hobbes:

This is called learning from other people’s mistakes, if you see someone pointing a loaded gun at his own head and pulling the trigger you don’t need to try it yourself to know it is a bad idea.

But if it is so effective why don’t you see players complaining more and more on the Revised forums about it? People desperate about tips on how to counter that crazy Japanese strat that defeats the US.

First, that’s a extreme comparation (the gun vs the Polar Express, I’m not going to die if I lose one A&A game, and it’s not a 100% lose if I try Polar Express while the gun in the head is so). Is irrelevant for this talk

Actually if someone dies or not from it depends how well he aligns the barrel with the brain. And the point I was making is quite relevant: it is a bad idea that will do harm to whom tries it and so is Polar Express to the Axis.

But the effect if more people would try Polar Express and work would not be complainings: people simply would cease doing KGF all the time and start making a balanced approach, because a allied Pacific fleet cancels any chance of Polar Express. I guess also bids would be down to 3-5 as much

So, if I get this right:

• Allied player is afraid that J might attempt a Polar Express so he decides to built a fleet with the US.
• Japan decides instead to go for Asia
• US has 3 options with this Pacific fleet: either try to challenge Japan in the Pacific, which is an uphill battle; pull it back to the Atlantic, which take 2 turns; or leave it there.

Essentially the money the US spent on the Pacific fleet won’t have any immediate impact and it will take a long time and investment before the US can threaten Japan or safely reach the East Indies/Borneo/Philippines. Meanwhile Russia is feeling the pressure of both Germany and the japanese troops and the US just lost precious turns to reinforce Europe because J could do a Polar Express. Which would actually work against the Axis, at least in my opinion.

Sounds great for Axis: no wonder the bid gets lower for them :)