If I am playing as US or Japan I buy subs often. Commonly as the US, usually around turn 5 or 6, I will do a 10 sub buy in the Pacific.
Posts made by Nippon-koku
-
RE: Buying and using submarines
-
RE: American, Soviet, and French strategies
I dislike the fighter buy on USSR1. You have plenty of factories at this time, no threat of SBR and no need whatsoever for the fighter. Better to buy it later when you are building solely in Moscow and can’t spend more than 30 IPC on inf. It is useful later but mostly only needed when the German bombers are in SBR range.
Artillery is a bit more useful because you can at least threaten a counter attack with it.
Disagree that there’s no need for it early on. It deters SBR (by G3 Russia will already have 4 fighters), it helps with those little counter strikes (instead of having to use artillery on the front lines you can strike with 5+ planes), and using the money on extra infantry early doesn’t equal more infantry later.
Let’s say turn 1 and 2 Russia spends 74:
- 24.67 Inf
or
- 2 ftr & 18 inf
Now let’s say you want to get those extra planes on turn 3 and 4 instead, and lets say Russia can spend 65 total:
- 21.67 inf
or
2 ftr and 15 inf
Either way, Russia has 2 ftrs and 39.67 inf. So the question is what has more value in those first few turns: 6 extra inf, or two extra ftrs? I’d argue the latter
-
RE: Turn 1 Japan Attack?
I would normally put down a blocker in SZ37 to prevent the TTs off Hainan reaching Calcutta J3. Frees up your infantry to be active rather than stuck on Garrison duty, which sucks. Another turn of production makes a real difference to the ability to get into Calcutta with the 3+ TTs.
Don’t you find the USA in SZ6 slows down Japan massively? Do you build a DD to force the navy out or face a Kamikaze? That really only works if your navy can come in the next turn to hold the space.
Consensus is that Sea Lion is a poor option unless it’s too easy. Many players buy 6inf + fighter UK1 to make it difficult, which is serious commitment.
Two fighters and save 8 IPC is a better buy. You still deter Germany from a Sealion, while giving yourself more flexibility in terms of units and available IPC if they don’t.
-
RE: American, Soviet, and French strategies
Welcome aboard
You can’t buy a factory on an island, so the Philippines is out (that and Japan would end up with it). Without overloading you, I’d suggest the following:
Russia - 9 inf and a fighter for the first 2 or 3 turns. Those extra fighters will come in handy on a few levels
USA - don’t try to split the money evenly. Pick a theater to be aggressive in early, then play catch up in the other
France - tech rolls
-
RE: Stall tactic
@Arthur:
The game is evolving and it seems like the Allied bids are slowly creeping up as Axis players are learning to compensate. I agree with cyanight that getting to Moscow is easy for a non-bid game unless the Allies play perfectly or the dice are against you. It is like clockwork:
G1: build arts
G2: build tanks/mechs
G3: declare war, move to Eastern Poland, purchase planes or tanks, bomb Moscow if possible
G4: March to Belarus, bomb Moscow again if possible, purchase fast movers
G5: March to Bryansk, purchase planes
G6 or G7 invade MoscowIf the Allies do a KGF plan, scrap this plan and focus on an economic victory as Japan expands to 80+ PUs/round. Eventually the US will have to spend 100% of their budget in the Pacific to contain the monster.
With perfect Allied gamplay and above average dice rolls, Axis can fail. Still I would give the odds of victory to be 75+% when both sides are played by skilled people. You even can get a fast win 10% of the time in a non-bid game when the UK fails in the Med/Africa. Italy can be standing in Egypt in the first few rounds and there is nothing that the Allies can do to recover. Italy builds a factory there, Germany provides a few planes to strengthen the position, and the Axis economy expands to astonishing heights. That can happen ~3% of the time in matches with heavy Allied bids in the Med. Time to start a new game…
I seem to be in the minority here, but I still don’t see this plan as an almost guaranteed Axis win (especially since I’ve seen it beat several times, on both sides of the aisle). Every time I see an Axis strategy written out it never seems to factor that the Allies get to play the game too.
If Germany buys all art G1, tanks/mechs G2, then it’s obvious they are going Barbarossa, and the Allies simply have to prepare for it. Two turns of 9 inf and a fighter for Russia, take Persia UK1, factory there UK2, and US going heavy EUS, and suddenly it’s not a gimme. By turn four the US will either be dominating the Med or landing in Norway (either way they will easily have 6-8 loaded transports in tow); Russia will have at least 7 fighters (one per turn for at least 3 turns, and the UK will send a plane per turn from Persia to Moscow starting on turn 4), making bombing raids difficult (if not impossible) for Germany and the UK will be assisting the US in either the Med or Norway, while providing support to Russia.
Japan can still be contained, as the US can spend the majority of its money in the Pacific from turn 3 on. Plus, Russia should use the Siberian troops to push into Japan on turn three, either into Korea or Manchuria depending on how it looks.
None of these things guarantee an Allied victory of course, but I’ve seen the all out rush to Moscow fail too many times to agree that it’s virtually unbeatable
-
RE: Stall tactic
@Arthur:
Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced. Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.
In spite of you 3-peating me, I would say that small moves at the start make a very large difference.
Some standard moves/inactions I find quite incomprehensible. Not landing on Sumatra or buying an Indian fighter UK1 are my two faves. Majority of my games as Allies don’t see Calcutta fall. Although I have much more trouble holding on to Moscow than most.
I’m not convinced that the convention wisdom is fully evolved. I guess that means this game has life in it yet even for experienced players. Says something pretty solid about it.
Great point and I strongly agree. I’ve played against the “unbeatable strategies” many times and they are anything but. Not saying I’ve never lost with the Allies, but an idea such as “JDOW1 done correctly breaks the game” has been proven false many times in games I’ve played (on both sides).
-
RE: Stall tactic
The game is way more balanced than people like to think.� The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions;� the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack;� the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
Agree 100% I’m still yet to experience this imbalance, despite over 100 live games, with a large variety of opponents, under my belt at this point.
-
RE: Late Game Italy Strategy
Just played a game yesterday and my opponent threw away most of Japan’s air force against a Chinese stack on J2. Dice went very poorly for him, but to take that risk at all was something I’d never do. The upside case is nice, but the downside case is game-ending for Axis.
Some people tend to overestimate how many planes they can lose as the Axis. I’ve had the same battle you’re talking about and routinely take down 8 or 9 Japanese planes. In the short run Japan looks alright, since China is wiped off (plus the couple of other units I put in there). But 8 or 9 planes down is a lot to overcome in the long run.
-
RE: Late Game Italy Strategy
@WILD:
I’m not big on a German strafe of Egypt either. When I play as the UK I use the transport in SZ98 to grab the inf and AA off Malta and drop them in Egypt via SZ81. Also, I’m a fan of using the India transport to take Persia UK1, so another two guys can be dropped over in Egypt on UK2 if needed.
Not only is the extra protection nice in general, but Germany has to think long and hard about whether or not it’s worth the risk.
Agreed, not willing to risk the Luftwaffe to AAA and inf. A loss of just 3 planes is too much IMO. Now if the Germans were able to get a couple inf (Afrikorps) into Alex via Italian transports (or build their own transport off S France) that is a different story.
Exactly. I’m always surprised at how many people are willing to lose chunks of the Axis air force (Egypt strafe, Szechwan strafe, etc.) to take out some infantry.
-
RE: Late Game Italy Strategy
I’m not big on a German strafe of Egypt either. When I play as the UK I use the transport in SZ98 to grab the inf and AA off Malta and drop them in Egypt via SZ81. Also, I’m a fan of using the India transport to take Persia UK1, so another two guys can be dropped over in Egypt on UK2 if needed.
Not only is the extra protection nice in general, but Germany has to think long and hard about whether or not it’s worth the risk.
-
RE: Late Game Italy Strategy
I’ll echo what Bill and Elk said: no way you’re taking Egypt that early in the game with good UK play. Hell, with good Allied Europe play Italy can be held out of Egypt routinely.
-
RE: USA strategic bombers round 1
I’ve never done it, but I don’t see much use for it on turn 1. Bombers can get from WUS to Queensland in one turn, so why rush them there? I think a large bomber purchase for the US is a great move later on in the game
-
RE: What country is funnest to play?
Very tough call. When I first played Global it would have definitely been Japan; about six months ago I would have said U.K. (and still might). Ultimately, I think the US is currently my favorite.
-
RE: Lessons Learned Global 1940
Excellent point on strength distribution curve, something I’ve always been congnizant of but have never worded as well as you just did. Any time I’m sizing up a battle that looks even or slightly skewed against me, the next thing I’m looking at is “Well, if we both lose ten units on the first strike, but I’m losing ten 1’s and he’s losing ten 2’s…”
The Allied carrier move is especially useful in the Pacific. I almost always have at least one Anzac plane on a US carrier just in case Japan decides that a group of transports is “safe”
-
RE: Lessons Learned Global 1940
@Young:
You make a great point about stubbornness of human nature and continuing an attack out of emotions and not wanting to admit defeat - I do it sometimes
Sometimes you get lucky and it pays off though� :-PI tilt easily when taking a bad beat in poker and losing a big pot.
And as a fellow gambler you know that, even though this can’t be mathematically proven, it’s true: luck comes in bunches.
How often does anybody play this game and it goes good roll, average roll, bad roll, repeat?
-
RE: Lessons Learned Global 1940
That depends on a lot of things! One of those is how vulnerable you are after retreating. Now your opponent can bring his airforce and maybe additional mech/tanks, amphibious assault units to crush you even worse
Agreed. Of course everything depends on what the board looks like at that time, which is why I rarely agree with absolute statements made about the game.
-
RE: Lessons Learned Global 1940
All great stuff! Glad this thread got resurrected.
All I want to add
Know when to retreat from a battle. I’ve seen (and lived) it so many times now: you roll into a semi-big battle with the numbers in your favor and victory is imminent, until that first round where you under-roll by three and your opponent over-rolls by four. You no longer have the numbers but dammit, you’re mad and you’re not going anywhere. You know how this story ends.
Just retreat. Better to lose a territory than an army.
-
RE: How often do you purchase new AAA?
This thread is a good example of how people can rely on the battle calculator too much.
So that’s what you guys are calling my brain these days…
Haha exactly! :lol:
100% right Baron. You made a great point
-
RE: How often do you purchase new AAA?
This thread is a good example of how people can rely on the battle calculator too much. Maybe in some cases the infantry over the AAA will be a mathematical edge, but taking down an extra plane before the battle even begins is a game changer, and in many cases it’s worth the risk.
-
RE: How often do you purchase new AAA?
nope an extra inf is more valuable every time
I’m usually on board with you Elk, but I disagree with this one.
Let’s say Japan is clearly going to attack India next turn, and let’s say India has 5 IPC to spend (a scenario that is actually not too far out there). I’ll always take the extra AA gun in that case (assuming Japan would be coming with enough planes to get an extra three shots).
I’m usually in favor of getting India at least 1 extra AA gun.