I think if anything, it actually gives you reason to be aggressive because you want to stop what they are going to make and you know that your damage will not effect the other player until the 2nd turn from when you captured.
Blitz is just a name for a first move “into a hostile, unoccupied territory”. Page 27 of the pac rulebook. Since your first move isn’t into a hostile territory, its not a blitz, Mr. Pain is correct, I believe.
My comments aren’t aimed at anyone, just pointing what should be obvious to everyone. The best player in the world might be an 8 year old girl living in the Congo for all we know. Not likely, but you get my point.
It’s a game, plain and simple, so let’s just roll the dice and have some fun. 😄
Also, assuming the cruiser initiates combat and the defending subs remain, don’t forget that the defending subs get to shoot first even though they are defending. That means the cruiser might not even get to shoot at all…
To clarify, I was discussing the merits of buying a stack of 4 bombers and sending them to the Pacific.
Sure one bomber might get some targets to snipe at - but a full round buy doesn’t add much to what you already got with the starting bomber. Anything can be effective against an opponent making serious mistakes like leaving a transport stack naked and open to attack, and in a case like that, one bomber is as effective as four.
The issue is with the mechanics of movement over the oceans. A Japanese transport at a harbor can be in range to attack a bomber while the bomber is not in range to attack the transport, despite the vast difference in base movement - an airfield for the bomber makes no difference. Land units can effectively move 5 spaces to attack when using a transport at a harbor (one load, three move, one drop). The bomber would need 8 move total to attack that transport and return to base, and of course it only gets 7 with the airport and 6 without.
It’s totally counterintuitive when you look at base move 2 for ships and base move 6 for bombers, but in practice, that transport can attack from one space further away than the bomber can.
In order for this to work you obviously cannot takeoff and land at the same territory. The Pacific allows for many landing areas so this is not necessarily a problem. Some good bomber moves in the north are to bring bombers from Hawaii to attack SZ 6 and land in Midway, and to take bombers in Midway and attack Japan and land in Amur. That extra move is what really makes the difference.
I say Germany always because Germany is your powerhouse as far as income, and the more income you can bring in for Germany the better chance you have of taking Russia since you can spend more, while I do like to bring an Italian Force into Russia this force is there to support the German force, take the first hits in counter attacks and keep my German units around much longer, Southern France also allows the Germans to build their own fleet to transport units to africa which can give you a big boost and can usually bring an Axis victory in the Med.
I agree with Zhukov44. A lot depends on what the Axis does.
If the US decides to go JF, I will go with 2 carriers, 1 battleship all placed in SZ 10. What’s more, I have the US fighter in Philippines fly it’s way back to land on the carriers when they are moved to SZ 26. By round 3, the US should have 3 full carriers, 2 battleships and a number of smaller warships along with 3 loaded transports all staged either by Hawaii or Queensland.
If the US decides to go GF, my US buys tend to alternate between bombers and ships.
I usually do this to protect a big fleet in the SZ directly behind the blocker. Or as a (usually) 1-turn preventive measure against invasions.
Example: Japan wants to delay the USA from reaching a critical zone during a ‘KJF’. For the sake of simplicity, lets assume the USA wants to reach SZ6 with a much bigger fleet than the IJN.
Put a blocker in SZ16, now the USA can only reach SZ6 with air -not enough to be of any problem for the IJN. IF a Japanese counterstrike from the IJN + IJAF is a concern for the USN, this blocking tactic may work for a couple of turns in a row, even indefinately…
This is precisely what I do as Japan, particularly mid-game if the USN is holed up in Hawaii (which they usually are) and the IJN is split into several task forces operating in different SZs. It lets Japan use SZ 6 as a safe placement to mobilize new naval units. The DD block is critical in keeping the USN threat to a minimum while preserving Japan’s ability to split its fleet to deal with multiple threats (or to consolidate disparate naval builds) - not to mention keeping the US honest and unable to send in a few subs to cause havoc around the Japanese home islands (a common “tactic” or sometimes “strategy” I’ve encountered from US players looking to stay engaged while they focus elsewhere (usually Europe)).
US carrier on A1 is bad imo. I am a huge fan of the all inf build or 1 transport and rest inf on A1. This is because you can place your inf on the west coast and move them to wcan and on t3 you ship them all to europe and keep your shuck shuck optimal
First of all you are already behind with a 18 bid, I believe the bids for classic were around 24 for a PA bid. (2 inf man, 2 inf EEU and 4 inf Lib) Means you will take Egypt with around 4 inf and an arm. The Allies can bring 3 inf (2 ind, 1 syr) 1 bmb and 1 fig. This will end in mutual destruction in the worst case scenario (in LL) for the allies. => Allies can counter a PA bid very easy kicking back the germans to the continent really fast and destroy the Axis bid in almost one turn completely. Only thing is that the Allies leave gaps in Asia and then the race begins (which capital falls faster, Mos or Berlin).
You can take some more risks as the Axis to have a better shot at the Allies, bet 1 inf in Manch (1 inf extra to lib) and take Syr on G1 as well, so it will be almost impossible to retake AES on UK1. Risky moves wich can cost you the game if they don’t succeed.
This game is an alteration of history. Imagine if Germany really conquered egypt on R1… How many people would have decided to join the axis instead of the allies, imagine the ressources involved. More oil, more money, more manpower. This has to be taken into account.
Well for that we play with the Neutrals.
Depending on different situations the Neutrals give income to axis or allies or neither.
Try using tanks first to exploit this weakness of the IPM as the Allies then move on to planes b/c doing it with planes takes a great deal of skill and game knowledge and there is not a great deal of margin of error in terms of purchasing. If you buy too many planes too quickly you can get in trouble and if you buy a few over a very long period this unique ploy might be made irrelevent. With tanks you have more options and its easier for a lower skilled player to enact it adequately. If you are worried about losing Africa dont. If the Brits slide their tanks into Cauc they can shield SEuro from the Japanese and delay a full takeover by them. Also when the Japs move a large fleet into FICSz to threaten Africa you can take Turkey with the armor in order to threaten a retake. In essence you defend Africa with but a few guys, I go as small as 2-3 or even 1. Japan is too weak to afford a press on Russia and a lurch for Africa and if Britain can reatake it immediately then it does no good. Of course British steel in Cauc and still hit EEuro and Novo, but if the Japs have gone “all in” to FICSz then you know they have to “crap or get off the pot” meaning they either have to go back to Japan on the next turn or go to Africa. If they go to Africa you make sure you have enough tanks to overwhelm(Japan shouldn’t be able to go with much more than 16inf so 3inf 20arm some air should be able to take with ~17arm, enough to withstand most counterattacks. That is unless Japan backs off troops f/Sink to India for just this, but in that situation Japan is costing them not 1 but 2 turns of reinforcements to Siberia so Russia should be able to push Japan back quite a ways there and the British steel can help.
The game is in the “Play by forum” forum, look at it yourself; it seems like it worked, because Zero conceded within a turn from that move, stating that the pressure on Germany was too great and his offensive movement would not have been enough to compensate for it.
I had actually planned on evacuating Karelia on my next Russian turn so as to move offensively with Russia against Eastern Europe as well, as long as I had enough to defend Moscow. Germany would have easily conquered Karelia but it wouldn’t have done them any good having a northern factory when they would need to spend all their income defending their capital.
At the same time, consider that the first-turn fighter gives you an “early” defensive bonus.
But the Allies do not need an early defensive purchase. If played right the Germans should not be able to take Karelia until turn 5 or 6 at the earliest, and this is without fighter purchases. So considering this longterm reality the shorterm is of no consequence. In my experience the Allies win by limiting/reducing Germany’s ipc level and then reducing their income. With this in mind I’d say a bomber or a carrier is always a better purchase because of their obvious uses.
Assuming America has Heavies Japan can still defend its fleet for at least a few turns with 2bb cv 2ftrs. Japan can even purchase an additional carrier to help in this. But it isn’t certain that American Heavy bombers could reach the sea of Japan assuming Japan has pushed Russia back to Moscow. At the very least transports give Japan a few turns to roll tech in reponse to American heavy bombers, but when Japan has a few ICs on the board America can immediately nuke the Japanese.