It has been a long time since I did a J4 India Crush, but I have done it about four times, so I do have a good feel it for it.

Now, having said that, it can not “technically” be stopped I think, but I believe the Allies can make the cost of Japan doing it from an amphibious assault too high.  In the one game where I thwarted the attack here was my general game plan:

Bring the UK fleet and planes from the Med. and S. Africa to India.  Build all naval units (carriers if possible) with India.  Fly ANZAC planes to sea zone 39 and land on UK carriers.  Move all French and ANZAC naval units into a combined Allied fleet by India.  Now, this was several months ago, but my memory tells me that after round three, the Allies can have a defensive fleet roughly comparable to Japans offensive fleet (not including all of their land based planes, just units in the water).  Japan can sink it, but, the cost would be very, very high.  They would lose either a very large portion of their fleet or planes.  In conjunction with this plan, I had the US build fleet in the Pacific for the first three turns.  In my game, if Japan had chosen to go forward with the amphibious assault of India, the US fleet could’ve been able to run rough shod over the Pacific due to their fleet and airplane losses.

Problems with this Allied strategy:
Italy gets big immediately.  The Allies are conceding the Med. to them from the start.
In my opinion, if Japan sees the UK do this, they might be able to simply go overland to take India.
Australia is an empty shell and Japan may have the option of taking them out instead of India.

Just my $.02 on the defensive plan to counter this.

“Misery loves company”  Few quotes are truer than that one.

15+ years ago I was playing the 2nd ed. game with some college friends.  We only played each other….meaning we were not very good which explains the unit mix coming up.

I was Germany and attacking Karelia several hours into the game.  I was attacking with 12 fighters (such a noob purchase  :roll:) and some number of other units (I don’t remember).  What came next I will never forget and has always set the bar for a dice whipping…my opponent shot down 11 out of 12 fighters. :-o

“Misery loves company”  Few quotes are truer than that one.

15+ years ago I was playing the 2nd ed. game with some college friends.  We only played each other….meaning we were not very good which explains the unit mix coming up.

I was Germany and attacking Karelia several hours into the game.  I was attacking with 12 fighters (such a noob purchase  :roll:) and some number of other units (I don’t remember).  What came next I will never forget and has always set the bar for a dice whipping…my opponent shot down 11 out of 12 fighters. :-o

Classic:

As relative noob at the time, I had 12 German fighters.  I attacked Russian held Karelia and he shot down 11 of the 12 fighters with his AA gun.

Many times the Japanese will think their fleet is “safe” after their turn.  Then, if the Allies have a good combined fleet in one sea zone adjacent to a US territory or island, on the US turn I’ll plop down a naval and/or air base so as to extend the range of the UK and ANZAC units enough to kill the Japanese.

This could work in European theater too, but I usually don’t see it present itself the same as in the Pacific.

While I completely approve of Larry undertaking the whole Alpha project to improve the game, I am sure that has led to many headaches by those trying to code the game due to ever changing rules.

It has been a long time since I did a J4 India Crush, but I have done it about four times, so I do have a good feel it for it.

Now, having said that, it can not “technically” be stopped I think, but I believe the Allies can make the cost of Japan doing it from an amphibious assault too high.  In the one game where I thwarted the attack here was my general game plan:

Bring the UK fleet and planes from the Med. and S. Africa to India.  Build all naval units (carriers if possible) with India.  Fly ANZAC planes to sea zone 39 and land on UK carriers.  Move all French and ANZAC naval units into a combined Allied fleet by India.  Now, this was several months ago, but my memory tells me that after round three, the Allies can have a defensive fleet roughly comparable to Japans offensive fleet (not including all of their land based planes, just units in the water).  Japan can sink it, but, the cost would be very, very high.  They would lose either a very large portion of their fleet or planes.  In conjunction with this plan, I had the US build fleet in the Pacific for the first three turns.  In my game, if Japan had chosen to go forward with the amphibious assault of India, the US fleet could’ve been able to run rough shod over the Pacific due to their fleet and airplane losses.

Problems with this Allied strategy:
Italy gets big immediately.  The Allies are conceding the Med. to them from the start.
In my opinion, if Japan sees the UK do this, they might be able to simply go overland to take India.
Australia is an empty shell and Japan may have the option of taking them out instead of India.

Just my $.02 on the defensive plan to counter this.

Krieghund,

I know you and Larry are working on the rules for the 2nd print run of the game.  I ask that you specifically put in the rules the example you just outlined:  What happens when Japan attacks a neutral Mongolian territory and Soviet territory bordering Mongolia in the same turn.  I had that same question and everyone I have talked to who hadn’t read your post first had it too.  Just a suggestion since Mongolia has some special rules attached to it and we were not at all certain when the Mongolian specific rules trumped the neutrals in general and vice-versa.

Thank you.

@corriganbp:

However, the R2 Jap DOW also allowed her to use speed to her advantage and get a temporary Jap VC win, even though when we played it to R12, it was clear that the allies would win.

Corriganbp,

I’m a bit confused.  What do you mean by “temporary”?  Either she had a Japanese VC win or not.

Regarding Unstoppable Sealion:

I am not saying with any certainty that this would give the Allies a victory, but my face-to-face playing partner and I have had some discussions on what the Allies can do to counter Sealion. We have come up with two possibilities that we have never been able to try and no one has really talked about, much less tried.

1.) Try to sink the German fleet after it attacks the UK. This is contingent on the US buying bombers in the starting rounds and the UK preserving what ever fleet and aircraft that it can.

Under the new rule, Russia immediately enters the war when London falls. So, if Soviets see Germany build a G2 transport fleet, they can build a small fleet in sea zone 127 or 115 so as to take Norway on R3 when they enter the war. Now, the US can fly it’s bombers to attack the German fleet in sea zone 110 and land in Norway. If some German fleet still survives, the UK can use it’s remaining fleet and planes to clean it up.

Problems: What if Germany goes to sea zone 109? This prevents the US bombers from making it to Norway. Possible Solution: Russian build in sea zone 127 and take Scotland on R3 so the US bombers would have a valid landing place. Problem with that: Germany could use a blocker in sea zone 125 or 126. Possible solution to that potential problem: Could the UK position its fleet in such a way on UK 1 so that on UK 2 it places a blocking ship into sea zone 110 and 111 so the only option on G3 for Germany is to do Sealion from sea zone 110?

If the German fleet is sunk post-Sealion, what happens? How badly does this hurt the Germans? Is not enough pressure placed on Japan if the US spends rounds 1 and 2 buying in the Atlantic?

Those were some of the questions my partner and I had. Personally, I think it would be a huge blow to the Germans to lose their fleet because they wouldn’t be able to transport any remaining troops back from the UK to face off against the Soviet for a time (if ever).

2.) The only spot on the entire map that the US can use one set of transports to shuck troops back and forth is Alaska to the Soviet Far East (sea zone 2- sea zone 3). Now, if Germany does Sealion, Moscow survives past round 10. Right? Well, if the US buys fleet and ground for the Pacific, on US 3 (after London falls), they could move to sea zone 3 and offload into the Soviet Far East. From there, mechanized infantry and tanks can make it to Moscow by round 8 (best case scenario). Well before Russia falls. Can they get enough there to matter? I don’t know, but I’d like to try it out. To me, it beats flying mountains of planes since ground units are cheaper.

A few of the positives for this: By having a fleet in sea zone 3, you threaten Japan. Slow walking troops can go to Korea and or Manchuria. The US only needs to build one fleet to have a real effect and place lots of boots on the ground. It also helps the Russians maintain their income from all of the territories in Asia…. a real bonus in my opinion.

I would love to try these ideas out on my own, but I have a newborn in the family and that precludes me from playing for the foreseeable future. Guys and girls, give this some thought. My partner and I believe there could be some validity to these two ideas.

Sorry to but in here but I just want to say this looks like a crazy :-o game.  With no one’s capitals even remotely close to being taken, it looks like this is a 20+ rounder.  Even luck to the both of you and let the player with the best strategy win!

Talking about a German bomber as a can opener……have you had a chance to use that to any effect in your other games?  If so, I would love a link to the game so I check it out and see how it worked.

As to your other questions, I’ll get to them at a later time.  Time does not permit me to type an adequate response at the moment.