The holiday season is coming and prople are starting to slow down their posting a bit. I just came back from Java, an awesome place to visit btw, and now can claim 50 territories on the g40 map. That brings my income up to 152 PUs without need to include any bonuses.
How is everyone else doing on territory conquests? What have been your favorite places to visit or live? There must be some military folks on this forum who have been to 60+ territories irl….
I agree about the huge risk of the Burma or China-stack strafe. I don’t do it if the dice were in my favor on G1, but definitely take the opportunity if G1 was awful. The last time I tried, I had miserable luck and conceded the game after J2. Blah!
Hi Simon, there should be enough planes in Kwangsi to strafe Burma on J2 and kill all of the ground troops in one round of rolling. The TUV swing will be essentially zero for the operation. Most importantly, you are trading fighters with an Attack of 3 for three ground units with a combined Defense of 6. That results in much better odds for a J3 or J4 attack on India. Many India players just turtle in their capitol on UK1 so I haven’t had a chance to test out the game plan.
Argothair, I have never played a game where Sidney could be captured on the cheap. There are so many ways to delay the movement to the capitol, and it is easy for the Americans to reinforce with a few planes. Perhaps it is possible in face-to-face games where people make mistakes more easily. Otherwise I would think that you would need to commit a minimum of 4 or 5 loaded carriers to the operation. It doesn’t help that the carrier-based fighters can’t strike from the sea zones next to Java or Caroline Islands. I have seen a trend among top players to more heavily devote ANZAC spending to protecting Australia. They have ground forces to recapture territories if you land just a few transports-full of Japanese invaders.
The blockers don’t screen against a J2 attack on Java, but instead prevent a J3 attack into Sidney. Hence you would have to station your fleet in a place like SZ 61 on J3. That is a long way from being able to support operations in mainland Asia.
Going to Sydney on J4 leaves mainland Asia wide open for reconquest by combined India+China+Russia+USA. You are leaving only a handful of planes that can project power in that theater. Once China starts making five or six inf+arts per turn, reinforced by another few infantry from USA and India, it becomes impossible for Japan to reconquer the key territories. At that point the Allies can focus on controlling Europe because there is no chance of an easy victory in the Pacific.
Some Bovine player mentioned a plan of doing a standard J1 opening, and strafing Burma if India moves their stack there on UK1. I assume that will lead to a higher probability of capturing India
and a better TUV result on J3 or J4. Do many people use this tactic?
Losing 14-19 fighters to capture India on J3 is not worth it IMHO. You haven’t subtracted the lost income of not controlling the money islands, along with loss of Mainland Asia from combined China+ Russia assault. You aren’t going to hold China + Money Islands after such a huge loss. Perhaps it is a good plan if going against a much better opponent and you are praying to the dice gods.
If I were doing a India or bust stray, I would capture it on J4 and then abandon victory in Asia to focus on Europe. The Japanese fleet would swing around to the Middle East and Asia.
Having just done the Scottish fighter thing, I can see a major limitation with it. Without Germany attacking both SZ110 and SZ111 you can’t scramble and therefore the Luftwaffe live on to assist with Barbarossa. If you scramble G1, you can normally kill several Luftwaffe which reduces Germany ability project power to both Normandy and Moscow.
Is that a strategy, Germany ignoring one of the UK fleets? Does that create new issues?
I presume as UK I’d be free not to do a usual 6inf/1fighter buy
SZ111 is usually the Allied fleet to ignore if Germany only has sufficient resources to attack one on G1. These ships can be killed on G2 but usually at a cost of a couple of subs, perhaps a plane or two, and potentially losing the ability to simultaneously attack a big stack in the Med. I would purchase a sub + 2 bombers on G1 if I knew that SZ111 was being ignored.
As the UK, I would strongly consider purchasing a factory in Egypt on UK1. Building 2 inf + 1 fighter in London is often sufficient to make Germany reconsider Sea Lion if they need to spend more heavily on controlling the Atlantic on G2. That Egyptian factory is invaluable for controlling Africa, the Middle East, and the Med. Convoy raiding Italy by turn 3 or 4 makes for a big shift in income.
The net result of that single Scotland fighter-bid is quite significant.
The problem of an economic victory condition is how do you have a meaningful one that isn’t present on the initial setup?
Simple solution: Don’t play with people who won’t give up when the ultimate outcome of the game has been determined. If you are going to need another 3-6 hours of your life to convince them that the position is hopeless, I recommend giving them the victory and finding a better opponent to play with next time.
Historically, Hitler would have crushed Russia if he put 100% of his resources to that invasion. Instead he spread his spending on multiple theaters, losing everywhere. A smarter leader would have conquered Russia and built up a stronger defense against Allied liberation. Eventually there might have been a stalemate, but I will leave this to actual historians. Likewise, Japan would have done better if they hadn’t misunderestimated America.
I don’t see allied fighters in Moscow as a waste. You can instantly flee when the odds are not in your favor. You can also strafe German pushes to Siberia. If you can win the strike in one turn, there will be essentially neutral TUV exchange even if his stack is primarily infantry. Straight up trades is not that bad for the Allies.
I disagree about the win or lose by turn 13. With Dark Skies type plans, the projection of power into multiple zones can tip the benefit to the Axis if the economies are similar.
Starving Italy is always a part of every game strategy. A bunch of Allied subs should be raiding all of the zones touching the Med as soon as the initiative can be sustained. Bombers can further deplete the production capabilities.
I also would argue that in most games Germany can capture Moscow. The question is not if Russia will fall, but how many German units are left after the assault. If only a few tanks remain, that will be insufficient to push far towards Egypt. Of course everything depends on how well Japan is doing. A strong crush of Moscow with Japan capturing India while holding China and the Money Islands is almost a guaranteed Axis win.
I would argue that Italy turtling down and building 20 infantry to defend Rome is almost as good for the Allies as capturing Rome. Those units have limited mobility and no offensive punch. The Allied bombers and fleet can pivot instantly to attack Normandy or Greece, or can push into the Middle East or Scandinavia with an extra turn of planning.
I don’t know why people are discounting this bovine theory. He tends to have great strats that are battle tested against top opponents. You can argue that a different plan might be more effective, but you can’t argue that this USA to Italy is stupid.
Italy can be stacked to prevent capture, but at a significant cost. If that cost means that the Axis can’t push all the way to Egypt, that means that the Allies have won the European side of the game. A big Allied fleet in the western Med with support from bombers can give a huge amount of mobility. Units can get to almost anywhere except Scandinavia… making it expensive for the Axis to have sufficient units to respond to attacks. If the Allies can get in a situation where attacks and counterattacks followed by another wave of attacks have a net zero TUV change for both sides, that usually is an Allied victory in the long run.