• The Japanese decided to be annoying, and they landed 2 inf in Alaska on J2 (which was vacant), and they guarded the transport with 2 battleships and a carrier (with 2 fighters). Whether or not this is a good move for the Japanese is not the point; the point is that you have to deal with it as the Americans. (but feel free to discuss too whether this is a good move or not for the Japanese, it’s not like we always stay on the point here do we  :lol:)

    Your US build 1 was a carrier, 2 tran, 3 inf and 1 art on the US East Coast. Currently you have 3 inf in W. Canada, 2 fighters in E. Canada, 1 fighter/1bomb in UK, and the rest of your men are on the US East Coast (well, the AA gun from the W. Coast is still there, but otherwise unoccupied)

    What is your decision, commander? Of course, you will be building some men on the West Coast - how many? Do you decide to contest Alaska with 2 inf yourself every turn + airplanes? Some variation? Or not at all? Keep in mind that the Japanese have 2 bb shots every turn, and discuss your answer. (I don’t have a fixed answer in mind). The Japanese will continue to attempt to assault Alaska with 2 inf + fighters + bb shot every turn unless you either present a threat to their navy or stack Alaska high enough that it no longer becomes worth it. They will also stop bringing men if you don’t contest it (that means they will sit 2 inf on there and send their transport back until you start contesting again). What will you do, commander?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Dunno why the USA built that crud on the East Coast, but here goes:

    3 Infantry from W. Canada to Alaska
    1 Bomber from England to Alaska

    If you HAVE to take it back.

    Otherwise, you could retreat to W. USA, build up and push back.  Oh no, Japan’s got 2 IPC for Alaska!  It’s not the end of the world and it’s not a game breaker.  Actually, it might be beneficial to let him keep Alaska if he’s building units to keep you from taking it back.  That means he’s not sending the fleet to take Africa and not building as much to pressure Russia.


  • Yeah that’s the thing - should you just let him keep it? I don’t know myself.

    That means he’s not sending the fleet to take Africa and not building as much to pressure Russia.

    That’s true, so are you saying you consider the exchange worthy? +2 permanent IPC gain to Japan, -2 to USA, but he’s not pressuring quite as much?

    And remember I mentioned that if the US doesn’t decide to take it back, Japan will stop tilting there and just leave 2 inf, not constantly build up.

    Annoying situation, though not particularly gamebreaking as you said.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If Japan stops tilting, you kill whatever he has.

    If Japan keeps tilting, you are not wasting units you are building to reclaim because you SHOULD be building in W. Canada to E. Canada from W. USA anyway, if you ask me my honest opinion.

    Either way, it’s a win/win.  Japan leaves a garrison you easily kill for probably no loss or Japan keeps driving up the stakes. The best is that if Japan’s driving up the stakes he’s probably using 2 battleships, 2 transports to do it. (1 Trn SZ 60, 1 SZ 63) which means he has next to nothing for real defense in SZ 34.

    In either case, booting him out should be relatively simple.

    USA 2:

    Buy (40):

    • 10 Infantry
    • 2 Armor

    USA 3: Dead Japanese


  • So for the opportunity cost of 2 infantry, you’re willing to blow an entire US turn?

    I mean, that’s OK with me . . . you ARE on THEIR team, right?    :lol:

  • 2007 AAR League

    I’ve always considered that move. It has many benefits.

    Japan doesn’t necessarily need to be in sz34 because the Allies would be foolish to move through the Suez even if it is open for them. They would be outpacing their support and if Japan can manage to take T-J the Allied fleet would be isolated.

    Japan rarely makes it past Egypt anyway, so the IPC difference isn’t significant.

    It gets the japanese BB’s into the game quickly.

    The US would have to build 2 more infantry than normal every turn to be sure that their Atlantic TP’s are fully loaded.

    Letting japan keep Alaska and stacking Western US and loading units from Eastern US wouldn’t be a good counter because Japan can just take W Canada and force the US to retake and expose units to the BB’s anyway. They have to go through W Canada so they might as well just go after Alaska.

    Japan might be able to get away with building only 5 TP’s. Since they won’t be in sz34 they don’t need any TP’s there and the TP returning from sz63 can unload units from Japan so they only need 1 extra TP for moving the 1 inf it takes to activate the BB’s. Japan will only be moving 7 units from Japan to Asia but with the 2 or 3 IC’s Japan always builds they won’t be short of units in Asia.

    The only downside I see is that if you like to take all of the Pacific IPC’s, like me, then you’re going to have to build your IC’s immediately or be stuck unloading only a couple units from Japan to Asia for a while.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Commander:

    So for the opportunity cost of 2 infantry, you’re willing to blow an entire US turn?

    I mean, that’s OK with me . . . you ARE on THEIR team, right?    :lol:

    How am I blowing an entire US turn?

    I want to ignore them until it is convenient to kill them or it becomes apparent that I can sucker Japan into wasting their resources trying to hold Alaska.


  • How am I blowing an entire US turn?

    I want to ignore them until it is convenient to kill them or it becomes apparent that I can sucker Japan into wasting their resources trying to hold Alaska.

    Because simply it looks like if you attack with 10+ inf just to hold Alaska, then those units are way out of place to shuck shuck : (

    USA 2:

    Buy (40):

    • 10 Infantry
    • 2 Armor

    USA 3: Dead Japanese

    I also don’t see how 10 infantry can magically blitz to Alaska from W. US, unless you’re using the mechanized infantry NA. It’d be US4 when you strike with a bazillion infantry/tanks, but again, it seems like you’re out of position to shuck if you moved left instead of right, that’s 2 turns to get back into line.

    The only downside I see is that if you like to take all of the Pacific IPC’s, like me, then you’re going to have to build your IC’s immediately or be stuck unloading only a couple units from Japan to Asia for a while.

    The other downside I see is that if you use your BBs early like that, then they can’t be used to take out the other island IPCs until a couple turns later, or not at all if the Americans decide to play with you.


  • Just FYI:

    I had a game recently where Japan had Alaska, Wcan, WUS, and CUS, and had built an IC in CUS and was building there, and was STILL unable to take Washington… Allies reverse shucked out of UK to compensate (Germany was thrashed).

    I think that should be enough of a statement regarding Japan in North America.

    The ONLY time I advocate a North America Strike is to interrupt the USA Shuck at a critical time for the Axis (a couple of rounds ahead of the main push in Europe).

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Trihero:

    You don’t use the entire build on Alaska, are you daft?  You’re producing extra units to blockade Alaska and ignore Japan.  If Japan leaves, walk an infantry in for free.  If they build up, then you build up.  Meanwhile, you have PLENTY of troops to continue marching to E. Canada and transport to Europe.

    So you only have 35 IPC a round income for a while.  And?  (Assuming Sinkiang, Hawaii, China and Alaska are gone.)  Eventually you’ll have enough extra units to retake Alaska.


  • I think that should be enough of a statement regarding Japan in North America.

    Whoosh you went right by the point. It isn’t to try to invade America in any serious manner, it’s trying to jilt them out of 2 IPCs using the efficiency of 2 battleship shots and drawing away attention to a relatively far position. Your point would be valid if it were addressing a strategy revolving around trying to invade America, but we’re not talking about that at all.

    You don’t use the entire build on Alaska, are you daft?

    Whoah Jen, let’s leave the potty mouth out of this. We were all doing nicely until you started an actual personal insult here! I simply didn’t see how a US build of 10 inf 2 tank would force Japan to leave, because as I said simply, inf can’t blitz to Alaska without a national advantage.

    Meanwhile, you have PLENTY of troops to continue marching to E. Canada and transport to Europe.

    So you only have 35 IPC a round income for a while.  And?  (Assuming Sinkiang, Hawaii, China and Alaska are gone.)  Eventually you’ll have enough extra units to retake Alaska.

    1. Japan isn’t going to simply abandon Alaska. Like I said in the original post, they will leave the 2 inf there if US doesn’t try to contest. They will not retreat the 2 inf to leave Alaska vacant, nor will they try to build up additional forces to stage a foolish doomday strike.

    2. If it takes America some time to reclaim Alaska, that’s a cool little boost to Japan’s income, and annoyance to America. Not only does America have less IPCs to make extra aircraft out of, but now they also have to use whatever extra income simply to retake their own territory. Wasn’t it you who said it was bad to have to retake your own territory?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I covered that insanity though.  Japan leaves only two infantry in Alaska.

    America builds 10 Infantry, 2 Armor.  America can only, realistically, transport 6-8 units anyway, they build 12.  That means they have 4 units to hit Alaska, which should be plenty to reclaim it without slowing their progression on Europe even by a round.

    If Japan decides to keep adding, great!  The more crud in Alaska the less crud in Novosibirsk or Persia!  Japan’ll never be in a decent position to push America out of the Canadas, and at worst, they’ll prevent America from filling 3 transports for one round so they they can build a nice wall. (They’ll fill 2, maybe 2 and a half instead.)

    But if Japan leaves, then it’s just a matter of one armor blitzing in and out of Alaska.


  • :-o
      I didn’t know that “daft” is a potty word?
    I’ll have to use it more often. *#^"x daft thingy hrumph!!
        :roll:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Daft is a word I hear on TV.  If it’s PG enough there, figured it was okay here. :P

    Anyway, the 10 infantry, 2 armor build is what I would build as America anyway.  I like having extra ground forces in Canada in case i need to suddenly put ships in the water or build replacement planes later, then I’m covered!

    That’s why I said I’m not blowing a dang thing on Alaska.  If it presents itself as an easy win and doesn’t detract on my march to Berlin, I’ll grab it.  If it does, I’ll ignore it.  Defending Moscow is worth 8 IPC.  Defending Alaska is worth 2 IPC to a nation that can afford not to have it for a round or two.


  • That means they have 4 units to hit Alaska, which should be plenty to reclaim it without slowing their progression on Europe even by a round.

    I don’t think 4 units is enough. Japan has the effiency edge with 2 battleship shots and 2 fighters. I suppose the US could keep a couple fighters to help offset that, but a couple battleship shots + 2 fighters + 2 inf is good enough to overpower 1-4 inf most of the time, and if America is spending 4 units when Japan is spending 2 units, then that helps the Axis in a sense.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I wouldn’t leave 2 fig in sz63. They are worth a lot more in Asia. I’d just land 1 inf every turn and let the BB’s work their magic. But, since I usually base my Japanese bomber out of Bury, I might be inclined to land 2 inf with the bomber and BB support if the US had 1 or 2 units in Alaska. All I would really care about in this situation is getting my BB kills and some Matthew Lesko money if Alaska is lightly defended. Makes the US bleed off units early that normally would be going toward Germany.


  • @Cmdr:

    Daft is a word I hear on TV.  If it’s PG enough there, figured it was okay here. :P

    the word of the day today is DAFT
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/daft

    :-) :-o :lol: :-P :wink: :roll:


  • you’re daft, mate.

    now pop another shrimp on the barbie

    crikey!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    1. Scot. merry; playful; frolicsome.

    That’s news to me. =)

    I meant nutso, off your rocker, not playing with a full deck of cards, one fry short of a happy meal. 8-)


  • This move could be a very good one,

    If right handled in my eyes,

    The reason why:

    • If the USA needs to turn their face around,and fight on own soil, they can not support Russia in their fight there.

    But this leaves also the east of Russia a bit more quite,

    Good move?
    IF Germany is alive and kicking hard, They could just put so much pressure on Russia that Russia should not even have the possibility to watch east.

    But, Japan needs enough IPC to support both fights, with Russia and USA, Russian fight doesn’t need that much anymore, Every turn 2 inf, or 3, moving to front lines can keep the Russians stand back, while you gain USA IPC.

    Most likely, the USA will not react right away, it is just Alaska, but this depends on the player,
    If the USA doesn’t respond right away, prepare 2 trans with 3 inf and 1 tank, and if you can spare it, also a fighter.

    Just for 2 IPC? It is more to take the heat of Germany for a while, and many times it happens that the pacific is very silent during the war in Europe, so resistance will come later.

    Also attack Wcan? Well Alaska can only be reached by that territory, and Wcan can be reached by several, so you are getting on hotter ground there, only attack in my eyes if you are confident, and have enough units to eventually get killed there.

    Because the USA has got a bit more IPC than Japan, So once they see it’s a real threat, they will most likely spent the most they can, (so around 7 INF and 2 Armor?) on you…

    Run!

    I think it is fun for the game, and it could really help out Germany, but it’s not much worth for Japan, only if the US keeps silent, you can just stay with 2 inf in Alaska, but don’t attack more, you will be shot down.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

43

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts