Much good advice I'd say, saving English $$ for a turn 2 fleet can allow the US first turn to be present for mutual defense. Years back my friend would often play his turn 1 england and invade kwangtung (A&A classic) he won most the time and it often set japan back, off balance a bit. Besides destroying units already ashore, sometimes he even got paid, it was 2 infantry and 1 fighter vs just the 2 defending japanese infantry. This was made worse if russia also made successful turn 1 attacks in manchuria.
Hi Jonathan, your strategy still reflects the old set up. What would you do with the new tournament setup proposed by Larry Harris? It consists of: UK: 1) Add 1 DD to SZ 7. 2) Move Cruiser from SZ 14 to 13. 3) Add 2 Inf. To India (total now 5). Germany: 1) Move German Bomber in Berlin to Ukraine 2) Remove 1 German Sub from SZ 5. Would you play more aggressively in Asia and definitely send two infantry to Egypt (if it is still British or only lightly defended by the Germans? I didn't have the opportunity to play with the new setup, but when I do, I will play the Allies ;-) My gaming buddy and me change every game who is playing with the Allies.
As Jose points out below, why not pull the Indian fleet down with the Egyptian fighter (if available) + the fleet from the coast of Australia? - it would enable some island hopping later and cripple the Japan fleet.
Thanks for the comment Lohmann! With regard to attacking the Japanese fleet in SZ37 on England's Turn 1, England really needs the fighter from Egypt. If it doesn't have that, a direct attack on SZ37 is extremely likely to fail while inflicting minimal damage on Japan. If that fighter isn't available, England can still hit the Japanese SZ61 but if it wants to do so and also move its Indian fleet south, that means splitting up. A lot can happen during a game of course, but I would suspect that Japan wouldn't have too much trouble taking on the remaining British Navy minus the fighters on their Turn 1 given that their fleet in SZ37 would be untouched.
Hi Jonathan, Nice video again! one comment about the Japanese sub in SZ44. In revised there was a good chance you could kill it with the British sub, especially if you used the fighter from the carrier to boost your attack. If you mist Japan would typically submerge to fight the US fleet later. But since in this version the sub can choose to submerge immediately, it is entirely up to Japan what he wants with his sub. If he wants to use it to attack the US fleet, than you can not get the sub! That is a little comment, other than that I agree with your suggestions!
How do you feel about using India and that transport off the indian coast to slowly supply troops to africa/Egypt, and build your African army that way if the situation permits?
"If the situation permits" being the key phrase. I would hesitate to make India too weak as that strategic territory is a jewel the Japanese often have their eye on. However, if I felt that India was safe from the Japanese threat and I didn't plan on pressing forward into French Indo-China, ferrying troops to Africa/Egypt would be a great move in my opinion.
What do you think about taking all the UK navy in the Pacific and the fighter in Egypt to attack Japan in SZ37? Of course this can only happen if Germany didn't take Egypt.
Hi Jose, As you aptly pointed out, England needs the fighter from Egypt for this plan to have a decent chance of succeeding. If that fighter is available on England Turn 1 and the US plans to go heavily after Japan, I think a move against SZ37 makes a lot of sense. England would sacrifice itself to destroy a significant portion of Japan's naval power at the same time the US begins a rapid buildup in the Pacific. However if the American player plans on going after Germany, England would be better served slowing Japan down through an attack on SZ61 and not assaulting the heavily defended SZ37. If Germany destroys the British plane in Egypt, then I would strongly favor an attack in SZ61 over an attack on SZ37.
i love how he says, look at what others are doing to plan strategy. no, have a strategy from the beginning. that is how you win. in world war two, japan had a strategy to hit pearl harbor to take out the US fleet but they did not find the carriers there so they broke off after the first wave, they had a second wave planned to take out the ship yards and fuel tanks to stop the US from building quickly. eve of a war is not the time to get cooled feet. if japan stuck to their strategy, it would have gone much different. bottom line, have a strategy, stick to it.
In the real army we do a similar thing as to what he said. My job revolves around it. We watch what our enemy’s do and plan according. Yes have a general plan but “no plan survives first contact”
Much good advice I'd say, saving English $$ for a turn 2 fleet can allow the US first turn to be present for mutual defense. Years back my friend would often play his turn 1 england and invade kwangtung (A&A classic) he won most the time and it often set japan back, off balance a bit. Besides destroying units already ashore, sometimes he even got paid, it was 2 infantry and 1 fighter vs just the 2 defending japanese infantry. This was made worse if russia also made successful turn 1 attacks in manchuria.
Hi Jonathan, your strategy still reflects the old set up. What would you do with the new tournament setup proposed by Larry Harris? It consists of: UK: 1) Add 1 DD to SZ 7. 2) Move Cruiser from SZ 14 to 13. 3) Add 2 Inf. To India (total now 5). Germany: 1) Move German Bomber in Berlin to Ukraine 2) Remove 1 German Sub from SZ 5. Would you play more aggressively in Asia and definitely send two infantry to Egypt (if it is still British or only lightly defended by the Germans? I didn't have the opportunity to play with the new setup, but when I do, I will play the Allies ;-) My gaming buddy and me change every game who is playing with the Allies.
Funny you should mention that...czcams.com/video/AMbl5HYUeNU/video.html :)
As Jose points out below, why not pull the Indian fleet down with the Egyptian fighter (if available) + the fleet from the coast of Australia? - it would enable some island hopping later and cripple the Japan fleet.
Thanks for the comment Lohmann! With regard to attacking the Japanese fleet in SZ37 on England's Turn 1, England really needs the fighter from Egypt. If it doesn't have that, a direct attack on SZ37 is extremely likely to fail while inflicting minimal damage on Japan. If that fighter isn't available, England can still hit the Japanese SZ61 but if it wants to do so and also move its Indian fleet south, that means splitting up. A lot can happen during a game of course, but I would suspect that Japan wouldn't have too much trouble taking on the remaining British Navy minus the fighters on their Turn 1 given that their fleet in SZ37 would be untouched.
Hi Jonathan, Nice video again!
one comment about the Japanese sub in SZ44. In revised there was a good chance you could kill it with the British sub, especially if you used the fighter from the carrier to boost your attack. If you mist Japan would typically submerge to fight the US fleet later. But since in this version the sub can choose to submerge immediately, it is entirely up to Japan what he wants with his sub. If he wants to use it to attack the US fleet, than you can not get the sub! That is a little comment, other than that I agree with your suggestions!
You're absolutely correct, Gideon. I completely forgot that subs can submerge immediately in this version. Good catch!
I was just about to comment on that myself.
but subs can not shoot at subs
@@kainoahiatt898 I think you meant air can't shoot at subs. Because subs can definitely attack each other
Put a naval blockade around Japan and then do several amphibious assults
How do you feel about using India and that transport off the indian coast to slowly supply troops to africa/Egypt, and build your African army that way if the situation permits?
"If the situation permits" being the key phrase. I would hesitate to make India too weak as that strategic territory is a jewel the Japanese often have their eye on. However, if I felt that India was safe from the Japanese threat and I didn't plan on pressing forward into French Indo-China, ferrying troops to Africa/Egypt would be a great move in my opinion.
What do you think about taking all the UK navy in the Pacific and the fighter in Egypt to attack Japan in SZ37? Of course this can only happen if Germany didn't take Egypt.
Hi Jose,
As you aptly pointed out, England needs the fighter from Egypt for this plan to have a decent chance of succeeding. If that fighter is available on England Turn 1 and the US plans to go heavily after Japan, I think a move against SZ37 makes a lot of sense. England would sacrifice itself to destroy a significant portion of Japan's naval power at the same time the US begins a rapid buildup in the Pacific. However if the American player plans on going after Germany, England would be better served slowing Japan down through an attack on SZ61 and not assaulting the heavily defended SZ37. If Germany destroys the British plane in Egypt, then I would strongly favor an attack in SZ61 over an attack on SZ37.
i love how he says, look at what others are doing to plan strategy. no, have a strategy from the beginning. that is how you win. in world war two, japan had a strategy to hit pearl harbor to take out the US fleet but they did not find the carriers there so they broke off after the first wave, they had a second wave planned to take out the ship yards and fuel tanks to stop the US from building quickly. eve of a war is not the time to get cooled feet. if japan stuck to their strategy, it would have gone much different. bottom line, have a strategy, stick to it.
In the real army we do a similar thing as to what he said. My job revolves around it. We watch what our enemy’s do and plan according. Yes have a general plan but “no plan survives first contact”
Could you do a show on how bombing works
Hi Dave! Sure. I'll put that on my list of future video ideas.