Stacking in Amur is suicidal. Japan can reach it too easily and with too much. You’ll get a half dozen hits or so before being flattened by the Japanese airforce and once those troops are gone, the far east will be blitz’d quickly and the Soviets will be starved far worse than usual. Unfortunately, having just infantry and AA means you’ve got very little offensive power and Japan’s enormous airforce means you’ve got even less defensive ability. So their job is really to make the best out of a bad situation.

I send the 6 INF closest to Moscow back. They’ll be essential and make it in time if Germany decides to go head on for Moscow.
The other 12 INF 2 AA will be moved to Buryatia. Any further forward and a Japanese attack on Amur will leave them cut off and as good as dead.
On R2, I’ll send 2 AA and, depending on Axis play, possibly 6 INF back to Moscow. If the Japanese airforce hits your infantry the stack is dead, so the AA are next to useless there. They might make a huge difference in a German attack on Moscow though.
For the rest of the game, those 6/12 Infantry’s job is to force the Japanese to commit. They’ll need to move significant air/land forces in position to hit the stack, at which point you retreat. Then repeat. Every step it makes forward forces Japan to commit enough of it’s troops and have planes in range to attack a 6/12 Infantry stack, and enough troops to defend against an attack from one since it can’t land it’s aircraft after moving forward. This helps take pressure off India, China and The Pacific.

At Yenisey, Japanese troops will be in range for your fighters/tac(s) out of Moscow. Probably, Japan will have 4-6 ground units - possibly with some following further back. In other words: they won’t have enough to push any further forward without being destroyed in a counter attack. If you get lucky, they’ll move forward and die. If not, you’ll trade Yenisey back and forth with small attacks for a couple turns. Either way, buying time and killing scarce Japanese ground forces is really the best you can ask for.

The first stack will make it on R6. Technically, a 2 turn German delay assuming a G1/G2 declare but with the 11 INF 3 ART in Germany being involved in any attack on Moscow. Frankly, if you can’t keep the German’s out of Moscow for that long, regardless of the German declare, you need to seriously reconsider your game.

The big boon to Taranto is that it’s just such a low risk, high reward play. If you win, you all but cripple Italy’s ability to threaten the Med without also tying up significant German resources. If you lose, your losses are mostly units you won’t really miss while each of Italy’s losses limits it’s options severely.

I’m a big fan of this one:

https://www.makeitsostudios.com/app.php?a=aa

The big boon to Taranto is that it’s just such a low risk, high reward play. If you win, you all but cripple Italy’s ability to threaten the Med without also tying up significant German resources. If you lose, your losses are mostly units you won’t really miss while each of Italy’s losses limits it’s options severely.

Viability of Sealion aside, I think Japan’s best option to support a Sealion is to blitz the Pacific hard in order to either delay America’s liberation of London or take advantage of America’s focus in the Atlantic.

Russia is unlikely (and would be unwise) to send units east to save a handful of IPCs. While Russia losses 1-2 IPCs a turn, Japan is has to dedicate huge amounts of it’s land and air forces to chasing the Amur stack across Siberia. And what does that look like when you factor in build time and location? 2 less infantry on the Russia/German boarder on R6? 6 less on R9? It’s just not enough gain for the investment.

Every turn delay to liberating London, on the other hand, keeps Atlantic UK’s entire income out of the war. It provides 8ipc per turn to Germany, which it can use much more efficiently than Japan. It keeps cash cows like Norway in German hands. A monster Japan is itself a huge threat of a victory city win, and forces the Allies to react accordingly instead of pounding Germany.

Going light on Paris with 80% and losing isn’t bad luck, it’s poor play.

Think about it from this perspective:
Taking Normandy and Southern France on G1 (or whatever else you’re using those units for) results in a 1 in 5 chance of losing the game outright. Are those good moves?

Or from your opponent’s perspective:
Wouldn’t you take a battle at 10-20% chance of success if winning it gave you the game and losing it only cost you a couple of IPCs?

@Ozymandiac:

@Amalec:

There is basically no situation where infantry are a better defensive investment than AA when you’re sure they’ll make use of all three shots.

Disagree, I just ran a typical German assault on Moscow. Giving the Russian +2 infantry gave a better defense than +1 AAA (and I made sure there were enough planes for the AAAs).

2 infantry are also 20% more expensive, so that’s not surprising.

@Caesar:

I don’t see the justification for buying unit that has a 3/18 chance of hitting aircraft when I can spend more for infantry and get better results.

1. It’s not a 3/18 chance of hitting. It’s a 43% chance of hitting with a smaller possibility of two or even three hits. That’s nearly 30% more likely to hit than an infantry unit.
2. AA hits are much more valuable than infantry hits. They immediately kill 10-12IPC units, rather than 3IPC infantry, and they kill it before it can fire - which is a 3/6 or 4/6th chance of saving one of your own units outright.
3. They don’t fire after the first round of combat - but neither do dead infantry. Just take a AA loss first and save an infantry.

There is basically no situation where infantry are a better defensive investment than AA when you’re sure they’ll make use of all three shots. More interestingly, the AA performs cost effectively no matter how badly you lose a battle - unlike, say, a fighter who lands a hit taken on an infantry and is then killed. An AA costs 5IPC and averages a fighter kill half the time. If you’re going to lose a battle badly and can’t avoid it, AA are the best way of burning as much of your opponents IPC as possible.

I think AA guns are underrated. Basically, in any defensive battle where you’ll face at least 3 attacking aircraft an AA gun is a better IPC investment than infantry - and infantry was already the best IPC investment for a defensive battle. It becomes a better if you’re going to lose the battle, which you likely will, or you wouldn’t be attacked.

The problem with building AA isn’t the unit itself, but the game:

1. Everyone starts with pretty much ‘enough’ AA. There’s no need to build more.
2. Land battle TUV losses almost always heavily favor the attacker, so the optimal defensive strategy pretty much always ‘don’t get attacked’ - either through deterrence or movement.

Still, I’ve definitely built more AA guns than cruisers or battleships.

Might be more interesting if the vote was weighted somehow. Even as the US I likely buy more infantry than any other unit while probably investing more IPC in bombers.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Amalec….play Russia here…you are the Russian player facing this scenario…German movement into your territory is a friendly act when especially you are allied to the Italians? You would consider this friendly or aggressive movement by the Germans…considering you are now not being allowed to attack the Italians by your presence? WITH ABSOLUTELY no repercussions…and to boot collecting bonus income on a PACT you signed

Sure, it makes no sense. It’s also makes no sense for the German air force to, entirely on it’s own, wipe out a half dozen infantry divisions in Alexandria, but that’s the game we’re playing. It’s not a simulation.

You can keep saying PACT in all caps if you like, but the game mechanics do not recognize it the you think they should. As has been said: the rules are clear and established. I’ve done what I can to help you understand them, but this has turned into a pointless argument.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Germany moving into Eastern Poland is interference

Oh my lord….slapping my head…it is breaking the pact

Please define “interference” in the rulebook. Please show what “act aggressively” means, and why a player cannot “act aggressively” towards a neutral power. Please show in the rulebook where the pact indicates Germany cannot move into original Russian territory. It does none of those things. Nor does anything else.

You don’t like the rule, and that’s fine. But the book only says what it says.