• 2007 AAR League

    The point of the Alaska landings is not to get into a pitched battle with the US. It is to drain the US forces going through the Atlantic and force the US to divert units to defend it. It requires only 1 extra transport because the returning empty TP is landing units into Bury. It looks like this:

    1 TP sz60 to sz63 land 1 inf AK
    2 BB bombardments AK
    1 TP sz63 to sz60 bridge 2 units Japan to bury.
    3 TP sz60 bridge 5 units Bury, Kwang or FIC depending on how you want to rotate them.

    It forces the US to keep at least 3 inf in Alaska every turn replacing losses to the BB’s or else Japan has the possibility of killing 1 or 2 defending units with the BB’s and taking the territory with the singular inf. It also ties up at least 1 offensive unit for counterattack. It doesn’t seem like much but when you figure that you will normally be doing the same thing from sz34 but in the case of Alaska you are tying up extra US units for your trouble and you are doing it earlier because it takes longer for the BB’s to make it to sz34.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    It forces me to do nothing.

    Japan lands in Alaska on J7 (for argument’s sake.)
    America has 14 units in W. Canada, 12 units in W. USA and 8 units in E. Canada
    America has 4 transports in SZ 2 and SZ 4

    America takes the 6 extra units in W. Canada, obliterates the Japanese and moves some extras from W. USA to W. Canada to replacement.

    Japan collected 2 IPC for Alaska, lost 6 IPC in units, diverted 32 IPC (Transport + Battleship) away from the front lines since they cannot also land troops in Buryatia in this same turn.

    America lost 3 IPC and negated the loss of Alaska.

    Meanwhile, Japan has removed 2 infantry from Russia’s front and thrown part of it’s navy against a territory it had no chance to hold anyway and did not divert a single unit from my assault on Euro-Asia.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Of course it forces you to do something. Namely tying up 6 extra units dedicated to solely defending or counterattacking Alaska. How many people do you know of that are willing to  hold back nearly half a turn’s worth of US production to defend a 2 IPC territory nowhere near Europe or Africa that costs Japan 1 TP that that they are going to build anyway? And those units are being slowly attritioned away every turn by the Japanese BB’s so you have to keep them reinforced.

    And why would I want to land 2 inf in Alaska when only 1 will suffice? every turn 1 inf, 2 BB shots.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.  Units I can use to fill transports if I have a bad battle and need to rebuild fleet or air power (which is why I build them.  It’s the same as saving 3-5 IPC a turn or more when you don’t need more units, except you build the extra units instead.)

    Of course, I could only send 2 units into Alaska and win.  Or 6.  Or 400.  The number of units is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that Japan has thrown away 6 IPC worth of equipment for a 2 IPC piece of land and failed to divert a single unit from Europe that couldn’t get there anyway at that time.  Nothing is held in reserve by America.  Nothing is wasted by America.  America just built more units then they could transport anyway because it allows them leeway in the next rounds builds to buy fighters, bombers, transports, submarines, carriers, destroyers, battleships, aa guns, whatever they need to fill a need for that round without adversely effecting the efficiency of their transport trains.

    Honestly, I LOVE it when Japan wastes money and resources on Alaska.  I have more then enough to thwart any build up there (though I usually wait a round to see if the ID10T will build an IC or try to stack it and hold it) and I have lost nothing from it.  2 IPC worst case scenario, reducing me to 35 IPC or 10 Infantry, 1 Armor which is 3 units more then I need to fill 4 Transports. :)

  • 2007 AAR League

    @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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    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!

  • 2007 AAR League

    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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    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?

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

40

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts