I know you’re only ever getting infantry. The difference is, on turn 1 you can kill 8 infantry, and even though you’ll have very little left, Russia will have almost nothing in their second line. On turn 2, you only kill 3 infantry, and though you’ll be much stronger, Russia already has a good strike back capability.

Back to the topic at hand, played my first game last night and did a G2 attack. I did not like it. You don’t have enough troops to be really decisive and you’re only killing single infantry if the ruffians are smart. It’s amazing how quickly they can turn that front into a quagmire. I think a g1 or g4 attack will be best.

France will almost certainly never build an A/C, but you know the people on this board.  Can you image the hue and cry, the outraged indignation, the tremendous uproar there would have been had it NOT been included?

Just got my copy yesterday, playing my first game tonight.

I was looking at the setup last night (no number or quality of pictures can compare to just having a fully set up board in front of you), and I’m starting to think that a G1 attack on Russia will be feasible.  With 2 or 3 infantry plus a tank available to attack against 3 infantry in each territory (not to mention additional tanks from Greater Southern Germany if desired, you should be able to take each border territory.  Your Norway units can activate Finland, and your Baltic transport cab beef up the assault on the Baltic states.  Even though you should take each territory with only a tank and maybe an infantry, USSR will be hard pressed to take them back.  Except for Leningrad, there will be practically no Soviet units remaining on the front line, and Leningrad will be threatened from the north by Finland, and from the south by the large stack that moves from Germany into Poland, with both being supported by the Baltic fleet.

Given that most of what I’ve read of speculative strategy has the USSR consolidating their forces backwards (Russians don’t retreat :wink:) until they meet up with reinforcements, a G1 assault may be the best opportunity to catch the Russians with their pants down, and really put some blitzkrieg pressure on them.

Thoughts?

Playing my first game tonight, so everything I have is speculation, but I suspect the key against Russia will be Mech infantry.

For the cost of a minor factory (12 IPCs), you can upgrade 12 infantry to mech infantry, this represents 4 turns of production, and the once the front is two territories into Russia, the mech inf will get there faster than units produced in Romania, for example.

I expect a typical turn purchase (Assuming a non-sea lion strategy) to look something like:
~12 ipcs on navy or air force (two subs or a plane of some type)
1 tank
4 inf
4 mech inf

Total: ~46 IPCs (typical turn 2-4 income)

The tank and mech inf are dedicated to the Russian front.  Some of the regular infantry will go towards building up coastal territories, the rest will go on the transport to either Scandinavia or the Baltic Russian front.

If Russia takes Korea and Japan takes it back, that’s not an invasion, that’s a skirmish, and well within the spirit of the Japanese-Russian relations during the war.

I think the 18 infantry are perfect.  Russia can’t afford to waste them in full up attacks against real Japanese forces, because the Japanese will quickly eliminate them and then blitz through Siberia.  Japan doesn’t want to attack them because (if Russia is smart about where they block from, probably Buryata or Sakha to avoid amphibious assault and stretch the range of airstrikes) it will cost too many units and distract from China and India for too little gain.  On the other hand, Japan has to keep a respectable force there as well just to maintain parity on the border, putting a serious damper in their fight against China and India.  Brilliant.

The Japanese can definitely squish the Russians if they’re foolish enough to stack all 18 troops on the border.  I think the key will be to hold them back one space.  That way, you’re immune to attack, but you still perform your primary task of holding Japanese troops and planes at the border.

It’s much like Sea Lion.  Barring a serious luck imbalance, the Germans can’t succeed at Sea Lion unless the Brits are foolish enough to let them, but threatening it allows you to force the Brits to react to it and constrain their options.  Similarly, Russia can’t successfully attack Japan if Japan chooses to defend its border, but holding back all of those units is a significant cost for Japan.

@calvinhobbesliker:

How does it invalidate the 1984 map?

The 1984 Axis and Allies (MB) map had Australia as a single territory, arguably an island.  Later Axis and Allies maps (and LANDSAT Footage :-D ) show it to have multiple territories.  Clearly a continent.

Ever since the Portuguese discovered Australia in 1520, it was thought to be an island, but in 1986, LANDSAT 5 discovered faint traces of territory boundaries, elevating the land mass to continent status and incidentally invalidating the 1984 Axis and Allies Map.  :-D

@Seven_Patch:

Yes, Russia’s 18 Infantry mean that Japan has to keep Infantry on their northorn border and can’t march those guys into China, or torwards a quick attack on India.  Japan now has to buy some Infantry.

Another big difference is that the US now gets 52 IPC instead of 17.  The Interesting thing about this is that Japan has to plan some kind of attack on the US to try and take out some US unit IPC value.  Once at war with the US, the US IPC jumps to 82 IPC.  So it’s not as clear when to strike as Japan as it was before.

One thing is for sure, Japan needs to find IPC somewhere and can’t let India collect Dutch island IPC.  Perhaps Japan is likely to attack on J2, give Germany some time to operate before awaking the sleeping giant.

Personally I think Japan is going to be a lot more difficult to win with in Global compared to how easy it was with Pacific.

I agree that the Japanese will far more challenged and interesting to play in the Global game.  I also think that J2 will be the appropriate attack turn (though J3 would not surprise me).

A couple additional thoughts:

• I agree that Japan will want to attack “for value” against the US navy.  With a J1 attack, the US first build money of 52IPCs will be similar to the “Immediate 40 NO” solution that people have been advocating in AAP40 alone, if they choose to devote all the first turn money to the Pacific front.  If a later attack is planned, then that US will be potentially building up navy each turn.  They have three options, turtle on the west coast, spread the pacific to threaten counter attack and spread the Japanese, or turtle on the east coast (planning to come through Panama).  I think the last will be foolish, as you will be exposed to an invasion of the west coast.  The first will leave you exposed to a pearl harbor type attack, neutralizing the navy.  I actually think that the best US strategy will be to try to have enough of a fleet on the coast to stymie an invasion and then get one or two other fleets out into the pacific with screening forces.  That could give the Japanese player some serious headaches.

• I think that a first turn complex in West India actually won’t be that useful.  Against a J1 attack and J3 India crush, you build the IC on UK1, build three tanks on UK2, and then India still falls before UK3.  You can take it back on UK3, probably, but will almost certainly lose both territories to the followup, while having less than half your income to fight Germany and Italy.  Conversely, if Japan waits for a J2 or J3 DOW, India will have a much higher income and force level and will be much better suited to defend itself.  Meanwhile UK can decide on turn 2 or turn 3 whether to build a complex, having a much better picture of what the state of Europe and the Atlantic are.  Also, UK’s income will probably not be much higher than 35 for the first few turns (with NO)