@Cmdr:
It’s not FORCING me to tie up any units. I build extra units every round, by turn 7 I have between 6 and 12 extra ground units anyway.
You’re right. You’re tying those units up whether Japan goes to Alaska or not. By choice even.
You are not the only person who thinks it’s a good idea to build a bunch of units and leave them lying around doing nothing until you can get around to transporting them somewhere useful. Amazing. :roll:
And why do you keep assuming that I would land 2 Japanese inf(6 IPC’s) in Alaska? I would land 1 inf and kill 1 or 2 US inf with my BB’s every turn AND sometimes even get the bonus of taking Alaska on the occasion that you leave less than 3 inf to defend it. Either way, I come out ahead in the IPC value of kills and you spend money on extra units that sit idle.
The objective of a good USA logistic should be to built the right number of units for the available TRNs. At the same time TRNs should be always full.
This is the way I measure the efficiency of the USA player.
Having more units than needed it is not an optimization of USA resources. So even if Japan do not land in Alaska with minimal forces, USA logistic is already disrupted.
I think that landing in Alaska should not be minimized as a minor annoyance. If timed well by the Japanese player may require a reaction by the USA player.
Naturall ythe right answer is to built the units in WUS, but even than Japan landing have to be dealt by.
Well, 505,
I see it differently. You are throwing away 3 IPC a round to kill 3 IPC a round. Meanwhile, I have tied up 2 battleships and 2 transports (since one has to return while the other comes out.)
That means you do not have 2 battleships and 2 transports to hit Africa, which means I don’t have to send units to Africa to keep England in the black, financially.
Meanwhile, the extra units, which are insurance against turns I need to buy 1 or 2 fighters to replace losses and thus cannot afford 8 ground units to fill my 4 transports that turn, are being used.
My expense? 6 IPC a round.
Japans expense? 3 IPC for the infantry, 48 IPC for the battleships and 16 IPC for the transports. 67 IPC to tie up 6 American IPC.
To be honest, I’ll take that trade on any given Sunday and twice every other day of the week!
Actually, it is 4.5 IPC’s killed for 3 IPC’s lost. Between the 2 BB’s and the inf I hit 1.5 times a turn.
And I am only using 1 more TP than usual. The returning one unloads a unit from Japan into Bury.
Also, I’m not tying up any units. Both BB’s AND the extra TP would be serving that exact same function from sz34 so whether they get the US kills in Alaska or Africa makes no difference to me. The bonus to Alaska is that they get started quicker. Plus, Japan still has a few naval units left over and since I build 6 TP’s no matter what with Japan, I’ll have at least 1 more free TP to land in Africa, as well.
No, actually it is 3 IPC killed. You lose the infantry no matter what in Alaska. Meanwhile, you are tying up a transport and 2 battleships for 2 IPC in land. America is tying up 1 Fighter for 2 IPC in land, if they bother to take it back.
I wouldn’t go to Alaska with Jap, as US I would leave enough tanks+inf for protection in LA and to
kill whatever Jap units were left in Alaska.
I don’t think Jap should extend further than Australia,
but sometimes NZ and Hawai in games that lasts beyond 10 rnds.
To have mainland Asia and sometimes Afr. that’s what Jap should do, IMO.
In a KGF, Hawaii is almost a given for Japan.
Alaska, as I’ve shown on numerous occasions is usually a waste for Japan. Unless your opponent has not set up their units in a wise manner, in which case, you can tie up a lot of forces for minimal investment.
But the if the USA arrangement means more units than the TRNs may load then Japan does not need to land in Alaska: USA is already wasting IPC without otpimizing the shuck to Europe.
Bingo!
Thanks Romulus!
You saved me the effort of posting that…
Taking Hawaii is pretty normal I think.
And taking ALaska, only giving Germany a little breath if they need it, if the US player is distracted good, otherwise its a bad move.
@ncscswitch:
Bingo!
Thanks Romulus!
You saved me the effort of posting that…
You are welcome Switch!
:-)
The point of a Japan landing in Alaska is to disrupt the USA shuck a specific number of turns before an Axis push (the number depends on where the US is landing, and where they can shift to).
If USA already has a disrupted shuck due to poor unit to TRN ratio, then the Alaska Attack is a waste of effort by Japan, because the USA is already accomplishing the goal of a disrupted shuck without any loss of Japan units.
I don’t necessarily see it as a waste of effort; if the US player is in hanging on his own rope, might as well hand him some more rope by landing a bit in Alaska, even if it’s just 1 inf :wink: If he takes Alaska hard then it’s 2 turns to catch up to where he wants to be in E. Canada.
There are two situation.
USA player is performing an optimal shuck move, optimizing the troops bought in respect to the available transport, without spending more on land units in respect to the available space on the ships, then Japanese landing in alaska is a worthy effort. USA player have to deal with the problem. In two ways IMHO. If he is building in WUS he can increase the building of land units to have an increased army in WCAN, and then counter the landing in Alaska. Or he can ignore the menace, having the WUS, WCAN and ECAN stacked with the units marching to Europe.
The problem is slightly bigger for USA player if he is building in EUS. In that case he have to switch production of some land units to WUS to counter Japanese move.
USA player is performing a sub optimal shuck move, buying more troops than the available transports may carry.
In that case Japanese playere have no need to land in Alaska. The shuck move is already not optimized and the USA player have already excess units for countering th Japanese. If Japan land in Alaska suddenly those units become useful to the USA player. If Japan do not land in Alaska those units are still useless for USA. They may go in Europe at last, but meanwhile they have tied down IPC that may be used in another way (i.e. buying aircraft). Two excess infantry each turn are 6 IPC used for doing none. So why Japanese should allow to the USA the possibility to convert a wrong move in a strong one. Play to enemy weakness not to their strength.
A KGF move can still be effective even if not run ‘optimally’. That’s part of the reason it is used so often (and used effectively).
Remember, those ‘additional’ US ground units won’t be extra for long. USA’s next buy can determine the excess and adjust accordingly, perhaps results in a ftr or bomber being bought instead.
KJF doesn’t allow the slack in efficiency as KGF does.
Ok, Axis_roll I agree. About the efficiency of the shuck move in KGF you are right.
However my focus is on the disruption the Japanese player may inflict.
If the shuck move is not “fully optimized” (bearing in mind that it does not need to be opimized) USA has useless units that may become useful to counter Japanese attack.
I know that they at last will go in Europe, but delaying USA effort in Europe is the objective of the Japanese move. If it is already delayed or not optimized why spend Japanese units that may be easily destroyed by the USA excess units?
My idea is: if USA is optimized and efficient may Japanese create problem? If yes he can, then I go in Alaska. Otherwise, if US has excess units doing nothing, that may be used to counter the Alaska landing, without delaying the shuck in Europe, Japanese usually may not create disruption.
What do you think about?
I had been a fan of efficient US effort towards Europe, as detailed in Caspian_Sub Policy Paper #2
US1 (42 IPC): build in EUS 3tra, 6inf (or even 3tra, 2inf, 3arty)
US2 (40 IPC): build in EUS 1tra, 4inf, 4tnk
US3 (38 IPC): build in EUS 1tra, 4inf, 2arty, 2tnk
Planes fly to Europe as well.
And even more, getting to 5+5 transports to Europe (35 IPC = 5 inf + 5 arty), once even 6+6 (adding some IPC in Europe). Building US planes instead of inf+arty and a little tanks is less effective.
But I found all this the most vulnerable to Japanese “coastal guerilla” as described above. Alaska may be only a staging point, but if US gets negligent then Japan may continue building a serious base (ftr’s landed in Alaska, further landing a ‘screen’ in WCA). All without committing really strong forces.
The real point is how US may prevent it with minimal sacrifice (IPC investment or delay to Europe).
Then yes, I found keeping one extra turn production’s investment (or 3/8 if using tanks) in building in WEU instead of EEU does protect nicely. Inf WEU > WCA > ECA, tanks WEU > ECA. Japan cannot win WCA, ALA is empty but swapping it may be pointless for Japan and so deterred.
Else keeping enough US defenders in both WCA and ALA may make the same Japanese landing threat “multiplied”. Keeping 6-7 inf in each ties up too much from the KGF effort.
What if as US I prefer to KGF with more inf+arty rather than less inf+tanks ? is the weakening of deeper counterattack potential vs Jap landings reason enough not to do that ?
More important - is there a cheaper US sufficient deterrence towards Japan ?
The point is if the landing in Japan is worthy for the Japanese to attempt.
It is useful if it forces USA to divert units from shuck even only for defense purposes.
If USA have already spare units for engaging the Japanese threat I think it is pointless to attack Alaska.
The more economic way to defend is to build unit in WUS. So WUS and WCAN are good protected by the marching stacks of inf.
If Japan still lands in Alaska, there are no problems. USA increase the production of land unit in that turn. So in the subsequent turn in WCAN there are excess units that may hit alaska.
The excess units to build depends on the entity of the Japanese force.
In this way Japan at best may invade Alaska and force USA to build some more land units.
When I speak of sub-optimized I do not intend building in WUS, but building more units than the TRN may carry.
To me, the point of a Japan landing in Alaska is to disrupt an American player who is cutting a perfectly optimal transport shuck. That is, if they have 4 transports they only have 8 units to transport.
To me, that style of American play is very unwise. It does not allow for replacement units or for distractions. It also does not allow for you to change what you want to ship to Euro-Asia. You only have 8 units! Whatever you happen to have, has to be shipped! If you had 10 units, you could mix it up on the fly if you needed too!
As for a “waste” I don’t think it is a waste at all. You’ll still use those forces, you just happen to have them earlier then later. That means you sink the German fleet in the Med and lost 90% of your aircraft in return. Well, you have 24 units in W. Canada, 8 units in E. Canada, 4X4 transports. That means you can rebuild 70% of your aircraft this turn without interruption. (Pulling numbers from no where to make a demonstration, not advocating 4X the amount of units you need sitting around with America. 2X maybe. 1.5X is my standard usually.)
@Bean:
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).
Japan built a Battleship on J1? Interesting. (SZ 37 BB cannot get to Alaska until J3)
If they just sit there and don’t build up, have the US ignore them but make sure you build in LA and march to E. Can via W. Can. By J2, if the Allies do KGF there won’t be much of an Allied Pacific fleet, and all of the USAF will be in London or N. Africa. All of that sitting off the North American coast can be VERY annoying. I don’t believe losing your focus from the Europe shuck-shuck is worth it for just 2 IPC’s. The J1 BB build means they didn’t buy a Factory or many other trans. Russia should be just fine.
Also, if they waited to J3 and used the SZ 37 BB, then that meas the UK Indian Ocean fleet is alive. If you still can, unify it with the Australian Sub and Trans. and go have fun with Japanese shipping.
