Pearl Harbor

[prodigenius]

@taamvan:

Well said ABH.

Its about those carriers and how you position them.  You start with 3, usually need 1 to guard the home islands during war.

If you lose 2, or send them to Australia or Hawaii, that doesn’t leave any extras to cover SZ 6 AND the Spice Fleet.  Even if you buy an extra one, by J3, if you don’t have 2 carriers in the Indian Ocean, you can risk coming in too light or leaving Japan undefended.

Doing anything other than the Vanilla Program with Japan J1Spice costs you $$ and time.  You cant put a 40IPC econ up against a 70 IPC one with 4 little buddies in the theatre.

Sure, but doing PH doesn’t mean losing carriers.  The fleet in the Philippines is more than sufficient against the 1CA 1DD that both India and Anzac have.  As long as you cover your Borneo transport, nothing they do can stop you from taking money islands J2.

I completely agree that Japan can’t focus on a naval war if it wants to win, but doing PH gives you a favorable trade and does push the US back - you don’t need a CV to cover SZ6 if the nearest fleet is 2+ turns away!  If I thought PH meant giving up economy, I would probably be against it, but as I see it, it’s using part of the fleet that wasn’t giving you IPCs anyway.

[WILD BILL]

zergxies, you are spot on. Only difference is on J2 I might take Malaya because it is a nice place to drop a 2nd IC, and stops the Anz NO. Then finish off the money islands J3, but either way you are getting to your economic goals (if you waited til J3 to attack you would be at the same place, but the Pac allies would have a lot more income, and units). The Pac allies are still losing income through early invasions, and NOs, as you gain income like any other J1 attack. They have also lost a lot of units, but now the USA has taken more of a beating losing both the Phil and PH fleets (they have no cannon fodder). At the very least you have bought your self a round of time, much more if the US decides to go Europe. The US is much weaker then w/o hitting PH, so the US reaction time is stalled on both boards, and they are really torn about what direction to take. I’m considering Shadows suggestion of hitting sz 101 w/German sub next time to really push the envelope lol.

To Arthur Bomber Harris, I agree that the Axis can’t win a naval race with Western Allies in the long term. Adding Pearl Harbor to J1 attack (then backing off to Caroline’s J2 in a defensive/offensive posture) levels the playing field some from the get go though. The allies have some catching up to do for parity on both maps, much less the over whelming naval strength that they need (gives the axis more time).

The Germans building a carrier on G1 has been a debate for as long as I can remember (pros and cons). I don’t think it sparks a naval race though because the Allies are going to build navy regardless (they may need to build a little more now). Yea a naval build can stall Barbarossa especially if the allies get ftrs to Moscow (which could happen anyway). I will say though I don’t like to build all ground G1 because it tips your hand too much IMO, and the UK is off the hook. I would rather pressure the Russians to give up their forward ICs (bringing in some art/inf through the Baltic as I take Leningrad) so I can build the units I need to finish the job on Red territory.

Some type of naval build (and keeping the German bb alive) sends a message to UK to max def London limiting what they can do on the first turn. It will keep the Baltic fleet a float longer, meaning the Germans keep Scandinavia longer. Building a carrier could be the single reason that the allies don’t go north to invade, because the amount of resources it will take to kill the Baltic fleet, or make a landing stick.  Plus a carrier (and a tpt or two) allows you to easily take Leningrad early, or even convoy UK sz106 if they went through with Taranto (convoy and SBR raid can really hurt the UK, but is a trade off to amphibing Russia, and comes w/some risk).

People seem to think that a carrier build is mostly for defensive purposes. Here is another point that I really haven’t heard much. I also look at a carrier build as extending the range of my ftrs when I want to be aggressive. It allows you to get planes into battles you couldn’t w/o a carrier (mostly at sea). A carrier can also allow you to have long range German Kami’s (if the planes die the carrier doesn’t have to risk picking them up). The allies have to account for that especially if I’m going Dark Skys bmr bulilds (which is a whole different topic).

[MarshmallowofWar]

@taamvan:

Its about those carriers and how you position them.  You start with 3, usually need 1 to guard the home islands during war.

If you lose 2, or send them to Australia or Hawaii, that doesn’t leave any extras to cover SZ 6 AND the Spice Fleet.   Even if you buy an extra one, by J3, if you don’t have 2 carriers in the Indian Ocean, you can risk coming in too light or leaving Japan undefended.

Doing anything other than the Vanilla Program with Japan J1Spice costs you $$ and time.   You cant put a 40IPC econ up against a 70 IPC one with 4 little buddies in the theatre.

I have actually left sea zone 6 undefended with no ill consequences other than a bit of convoy disruption. Do a defensive build in Japan proper to make sure it doesn’t fall and off goes the fleet with loaded carriers. The US moves in and perhaps takes Korea, I take India on my next turn and the US convoy disrupts me but the gain from India offsets it, and two turns later I am back in sea zone 6 (having destroyed or run off the US fleet because it cannot simply stand against a prepared IJN if the US is splitting its efforts). If the US has a bunch of loaded transports, you might need to consider a second round of defensive building before you move (but if the US has that many transports in the Pacific ready to kill Japan you might consider just killing the US fleet and then going to kill India!)

Obviously this depends on the strength of the US fleet, but as I said I have used it with great effect. It is especially good early in the game if the US is going Germany first.

Marsh

[simon33]

That is ok but if the USN can remain in SZ6 Japan is pretty much toast.

You can build a DD in SZ6 to force the USN to face Kamikazes or retreat but if that is not enough, things are bad for Japan.

[Teflon2017]

:-) :-P :roll:

OK, finally got my forum account up and running.  The confirmation email was in my Junk Mail Box of all places. :roll:

Intriguing to see all of the Strategic discussions fostered about the J1 Attack.  I found myself being pulled towards Taamvan and Simon33 and Bomber Harris….and then pulled back to Wild Bill and Zerxes.  I’ve decided a gradual accumulation of the money islands by end of J3 is in order.  I will pull back J2 to Carolines (maybe…tend towards being a little compulsive which makes for surprises) but only once I’ve spanked PACFLT hard with IJF “Air Power!!” :-o and left 1 or 2 Gnd Units behind in Honolulu for the US to deal with.

Moving fwd I’d like to ask any of you about moving the 2x IN in Siam West instead of east in an attempt to prestage an attack on Malay on J2 with IJAF and no Amphib landing (focusing all TT amphib action on the money Is.).  This would kill the ANZAC NO early and keep AUS small.  Realize I can do the same thing by landing on New Guinea and threaten Dutch W. New Guinea.

Another issue I’d like to discuss. 
Not trying to cheat, but trying to visualize and stretch to its limits the advantage of leaving carriers behind for ghost Non-Combat Moves (NCMs) to justify maximizing Ftrs in an AirSea Battle (ASB).  Lets say in my J1 Attack on Pearl I use planes from the 2 IJN Carriers (CV) in SZ 6 but I also want to use the 2 planes from the SZ33 carrier to attack Manila, also on J1.  If I leave both CVs in SZ6 there until the NCM phase and I do the same with the carrier in SZ33, would this justify me being able to bring an add’l 2 Ftrs from mainland Japan AB into the battle at Pearl SZ26 for a total of 6x Ftrs in that AO…this all justified even if I only end up actually bringing 2 CVs in during the NCM phase because I selected 2 of the 6 planes as casualties during CC phase?

In other words, is the use of fighters I laid out above legal or not?  Or, if I only have 3 CVs allocated btw the 2 Battles, is 4x Ftrs the max total I can fly into SZ26 from JPN SZ6 and 2x Ftrs into Philippines from CV at Caroline Is.?  And, that’s just how the rules work about bonified landing spots…

[WILD BILL]

Short answer is no your carriers can’t pull double duty. All your planes must have eligible landing spots when you set-up your combat moves.

[Teflon2017]

WB.  Rog.  In YGH’s video the benefit when losing the planes was that only one CV had to move not that you get to add more planes……can I get ur thoughts on all of the above?

[simon33]

@Teflon2017:

WB.  Rog.   In YGH’s video the benefit when losing the planes was that only one CV had to move not that you get to add more planes……can I get ur thoughts on all of the above?

That is correct - the CV doesn’t have to NCM to catch dead planes. This doesn’t exempt you from the need to have a possible (however unlikely) NCM to catch all the planes if they all live. It can depend on the clearing of a SZ that is being attacked by one sub vs 10 defending BBs, for example, but it has to be theoretically possible.

[WILD BILL]

I like to go for Malaya J2 for the reason you posted (Anz NO), plus that is the direction I want to go anyway to pressure India. So on J2 I will have fleet at Malaya, Caroline’s, and probably Philippines. All these are in striking distance to Queensland sz54. Not saying I would hit it, because I’m more interested in the money islands J3, but the threat is real and might keep the Anz building ground and not ships.

I also drop an IC on FIC J2 (sometimes Kwangtung too) so I can get a resurgence into China, threaten India, or for fleet later if I need to.

[Charles de Gaulle]

I don’t go for Hawaii unless the U.S. adds more ships to it and you have great odds making it really worth while.  Attacking it with a J1 attack puts way too many of your ships out of range.  You really need some of those down south and removing a few U.S. doesn’t make the cut.  It is just like going after Australia when you can’t even take Sydney.  The worst part is the fact that you can’t litterally take Hawaii itself which means no sea base to get repaired or get out of there.  Of course you can take Hawaii turn 2, but once again you are out of range of doing more important things.  On top of all this, the U.S. will b a little sad that he lost some ships, but on the other hand, he now has an easy way to get in the fight and is tying up a lot of enemy units.

[creeping-deth87]

@Young:

Why not converge as much Japanese navy that can reach into the Hawaii sea zone, with the American ships already there (they’re neutral powers after all). America wouldn’t be able to attack US1, the American ships wouldn’t be able to escape far, and America can only build 3 units off San Francisco US1, leaving them sitting ducks for a J2 attack (I call it a crowbar)… anyone care to do the math on that?

This actually isn’t possible. Japan can’t be within 2 spaces of Western US without declaring war and the Hawaii sea zone is 2 spaces.

[simon33]

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

[creeping-deth87]

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

[taamvan]

We would really have an argument about the rules and the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory if Japan was allowed to “pass at peace” with the USA, waiting neutral with its entire fleet in SZ 26 off French Frigate Shoals.

Seems like that would be hard for the American patrols to miss…

[simon33]

@creeping-deth87:

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

SZ1, SZ10, SZ2 are all one space from those territories.

SZs 11, 3, 8, 9 and 12 are all two spaces.

SZ26 is 3 spaces
SZ25 is 4 spaces

[creeping-deth87]

@simon33:

@creeping-deth87:

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

SZ1, SZ10, SZ2 are all one space from those territories.

SZs 11, 3, 8, 9 and 12 are all two spaces.

SZ26 is 3 spaces
SZ25 is 4 spaces

LOL wow you are really trying to stretch this. SZ 26 is within 2 sea zones of western us. There is no ambiguity here, it’s a very explicit rule.

[taamvan]

@ShadowHAwk:

Lets think about the rule.

It was clearly intended to make sure that Japan cannot invade the US before they are at war. Especialy important in the pacific game.
So verry easy, you cannot put ships in any SZ that would ( if those ships where transports ) allow an invasion of the US continent.

Though this makes it pretty hard for japan to actualy attack russia as it would need to be at war with the US in order to do so.
Never thought of that rule.

The Japanese could not end their turn in SZ4, but they could end their turn in SZ 5, and therefore still invade the Soviet Union.

[simon33]

@creeping-deth87:

LOL wow you are really trying to stretch this. SZ 26 is within 2 sea zones of western us. There is no ambiguity here, it’s a very explicit rule.

Hmm, This has never come up in a game I’ve played. I guess if it says “sea zones”, your reading would be correct.

[KaLeu]

This debate about the meaning of the phrase “within two sea zones” has me somewhat confused about a rule I never really looked at before. For example, if you look at the map, then SZ26 is clearly three sea zones away from the Western US. Nobody would doubt that if they were land zones. But the fact that they are sea zones implies that an amphibious invasion from that zone would be possible.

And it stands to reason that you’d want to rule out such an invasion, as pointed out by ShadowHawk:

@ShadowHAwk:

Lets think about the rule.

It was clearly intended to make sure that Japan cannot invade the US before they are at war. Especialy important in the pacific game.
So verry easy, you cannot put ships in any SZ that would ( if those ships where transports ) allow an invasion of the US continent.

But if you consider that, then how about transports in SZ6? They can invade Alaska, but surely Japan can build them there?

So why I agree that SZ 26 is probably not accessible to Japan while not at war with the US, I’d appreciate an official ruling just to be sure.

[creeping-deth87]

Sea zone 6 is within 2 sea zones of the Aleutian Islands, not Alaska. There is no problem there with the rule.