@ShadowHAwk ya, and i don’t think i’ll be able to put an airbase on Gibralter like i’ve been doing and hold london, could be a long road back for the allies!
How to handle money islands as Anzac/UK
-
Hawaii is always a great spot because you can land on Japan or Queensland in one turn so you can threaten Japan while shielding ANZAC.
-
@Charles:
Place for the bulk of the American fleet?
How about dead center in the heat of battle? :-DOn a serious note, I do prefer keeping most of the US Navy up north, but I almost always have American ships and planes down south helping ANZAC and reinforcements going to Hawaii for deployment. The trouble for the US in the Pacific is mobility. Either you stay back in Hawaii where you can quickly move anywhere or you move in further to safe zones like Alaska and Australia and sacrifice your range.
Anyway, to justify my first comment made in jest, the US really needs to get in the middle of the Pacific as soon as Japan gives them the chance. The Caroline Islands is the obvious route, but there are other places that can be used such as Iwo Jima, eastern Russia, New Guinea, the DEI and even places like the Marshall Isalnds with an added sea base. Once you force put the Japanese into a situation where they simply cannot be in two places at once, Yamamota is going to start sweating.
Getting the Carolines is cool for the USA but most games I am allies it seems too much difficulty for the gain. That AA Gun adds to the fear that you will lose a plane but you can’t even get a plane there if it starts in SZ26 or Hawaii. One game recently, I intended to land ANZAC planes on the airbase but failed to take the island and my US Pacific fleet went to the bottom of the ocean!
@Caesar:
Hawaii is always a great spot because you can land on Japan or Queensland in one turn so you can threaten Japan while shielding ANZAC.
Hawaii doesn’t allow many offensive possibilities for USA. Even if you’re targeting Korea, they can easily put down a blocker.
@Caesar:
I find parking submarines off the mainland SZ while bombing ��� factories does great wonders to make Japanese peacefully agree with Allied policies.
Where are you basing your US Bombers? Why wouldn’t the IJN have a DD in range of SZ6 if they saw subs coming?
-
Because as I said parking a fleet on Hawaii does great wonders to scare Japanese units into going where I want them to go. Bombers bomb from USSR.
-
@Caesar:
Because as I said parking a fleet on Hawaii does great wonders to scare Japanese units into going where I want them to go. Bombers bomb from USSR.
The IJN should not run back to SZ6 because of the USN positioning in Hawaii or Midway. If the USN moves into SZ6, build a DD and move to SZ35 (Philippines) and then you can target the CVs with Kamikazes if they don’t run away. Also make sure most of your air force is in range. The remaining fleet is unlikely to be strong enough to defend against your concerted attack.
The fear is USA landing on Korea and being reinforced by USSR. Perhaps that is an over hyped fear but I don’t know. I think it is a pretty strong move for the USA.
-
IF the USA wants to play games with Japan and threaten SZ6 “Home Waters” or go far north in USSR, Iam totally fine with that, I can handle that. What I cannot handle is the USA going into the south Pacific and messing with my Money Islands, Singapore, Hong Kong, Hanoi and Manila IPC money. � That very small region on the board is worth 30 IPC in conquered territory IPC value. The exact same IPC level Germany starts the war at.
It is the most important region on the map and if Japan controls it and the USA ignores it….That is cool.
-
IF the USA wants to play games with Japan and threaten SZ6 “Home Waters” or go far north in USSR, Iam totally fine with that, I can handle that. What I cannot handle is the USA going into the south Pacific and messing with my Money Islands, Singapore, Hong Kong, Hanoi and Manila IPC money. � That very small region on the board is worth 30 IPC in conquered territory IPC value. The exact same IPC level Germany starts the war at.
It is the most important region on the map and if Japan controls it and the USA ignores it….That is cool.
Usually in my games, I’ve had to leave those islands alone, I try to have UK, ANZAC, and/or France take those islands rather than the US only due to US having such an insane amount they already make. However US Korea is such a pain for Japan because this will allow USSR to pull off their eastern front, liberate China, and prevent Japan from making a navy off their homeland.
-
“If you are hurting your enemy, good; if you are killing him, great.”
Americans anywhere in the Pacific hurt Japan, but the question is what kills Japan?
Sacking their reserves?
Or
Threatening their homeland?Just my opinion, but I like a minor force down south helping Australia (fighters, bombers, destroyers, submarines) and a major force up north. Splitting up your navy is fine as long as you won’t be attacked by Japan. This splitting is not really a severe disadvantage because Japan has to split up in the same ratio or let you have your way. Don’t be Afraid to split up your forces in the Pacific, just be cautious of counterattack and regrouping range. The same applies to playing as Japan. Of course, places like Western Europe require a different approach.
-
If the USA did that, as Japan I think I would sit on SZ35 or perhaps SZ33 so I could strike either force. Then what would either force do? Northern force might have to just sit tight and the southern force would have to run, I think. I guess the problem is that you could lose a few money islands. Depends on the strength of the southern force I suppose; if possible, you should hold SZ42.
-
The idea is not to move first, but let Japan move first. For example: ANZAC takes Java and Japan simply must take it back. Whatever Japan sends down there you destroy as the US. If Japan is not careful enough and sends too much down there, US can move north and hit the homeland.
-
@Charles:
The idea is not to move first, but let Japan move first. For example: ANZAC takes Java and Japan simply must take it back. Whatever Japan sends down there you destroy as the US. If Japan is not careful enough and sends too much down there, US can move north and hit the homeland.
The problem is that I have played enough Japanese players to understand that they are smart enough to let US make the first move and react to it with the exception of getting that sweet 20 dollar bonus.
-
What good American player would lose his cool if Japan was playing so defensively that ANZAC could do as he pleases? I consider an American navy forcing Japan to keeps its ships in the defensive AS WELL AS let ANZAC keep money islands a worth-while effort. Japan cannot ignore Allied gains and then wait for the US to move further. Those first Allied gains can be detrimental. Unless Japan is going for Russia or something, it must keep a hold on the important places in the Pacific.
No money islands, no fuel. No fuel, no war.
-
Except Japan not controlling those island is a huge annoyance but it isn’t a gunshot to the head for Japan.
-
@Caesar:
Except Japan not controlling those island is a huge annoyance but it isn’t a gunshot to the head for Japan.
True its only worth about 20ipcs for japan and 15 for the allies.
Right but I am saying is that if Japan ignores those territories, which is foolish, it wouldn’t mean defeat for Japan.
-
@Caesar:
Except Japan not controlling those island is a huge annoyance but it isn’t a gunshot to the head for Japan.
True its only worth about 20ipcs for japan and 15 for the allies.
Umm… an extra battleship a turn or 3 tanks on the mainland seems like it’ll add up quickly to me.
Its why, as Japan, I always self-debate between J2 taking the money islands (if I did a J1 I already took Borneo) or taking Malaya (I really like having a factory and an airfield there to cover the money islands easily and still launch tanks/mechs at India).
-
@Caesar:
Except Japan not controlling those island is a huge annoyance but it isn’t a gunshot to the head for Japan.
True its only worth about 20ipcs for japan and 15 for the allies.
Umm… an extra battleship a turn or 3 tanks on the mainland seems like it’ll add up quickly to me.
Its why, as Japan, I always self-debate between J2 taking the money islands (if I did a J1 I already took Borneo) or taking Malaya (I really like having a factory and an airfield there to cover the money islands easily and still launch tanks/mechs at India).
I’m interested in what you think makes Malaya worth losing a turn of money islands income for. Land-wise FIC is the same distance to India, plus you probably took FIC J1 which means you can have a factory pumping out units there on turn 3 rather than turn 4 with Malaya. I guess there’s the naval base but still FIC seems like the better option IMO
-
When you let your opponent dictate events without contesting them, you lose.
If the Allies do not contest the money islands early and often, Japan can do as it wishes. Given ANZAC’s position and limited income, it really has only one effective sphere of influence and that is the Dutch East Indies. Until the US can effectively contest Japan there, it is ANZAC’s job. Failure to do it will result in a loss. Yes, that means throwing transports away so that Japan will have to counterattack the Dutch East Indies (a 13 IPC swing for taking any one of three members in the chain). It means having some kind of offensive force that can contest the waters around the Dutch East Indies.
Given ANZAC’s limited income, it might be necessary for the US to shuck two infantry or a fighter each turn down to ANZAC to free up ANZAC’s income for build transports and ground troops to contest the Dutch East indies. If Japan reacts by sending an invasion force down to ANZAC, so much the better because that takes pressure off India, China, Russia, and the US if the US and ANZAC have defended properly.
Simply put, ANZAC’s job is to poke the bear and get it to charge, then crawl into it’s shell and ride out the mauling. The US can help build the shell.
It is easiest for ANZAC to contest Java and sea zone 42. However, if ANZAC can manage to build a minor industrial complex on Queensland it can also reach all the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, and Malaya with only a one turn delay. This is often possible if Japan does not strip ANZAC of both it’s objectives (typically in the interest of killing India faster).
The Allies as a whole are an exercise in balance between offense and defense, and that includes ANZAC.
Marsh
-
@Elsass-Lorraine:
Umm… an extra battleship a turn or 3 tanks on the mainland seems like it’ll add up quickly to me.
Its why, as Japan, I always self-debate between J2 taking the money islands (if I did a J1 I already took Borneo) or taking Malaya (I really like having a factory and an airfield there to cover the money islands easily and still launch tanks/mechs at India).
I’m interested in what you think makes Malaya worth losing a turn of money islands income for. Land-wise FIC is the same distance to India, plus you probably took FIC J1 which means you can have a factory pumping out units there on turn 3 rather than turn 4 with Malaya. I guess there’s the naval base but still FIC seems like the better option IMO
I like the naval base on Malaya (and will often add an airbase later) so I like a factory there for when buying navy for my southern fleet, but, just as much, I usually don’t have the resources to protect 2 out of 3 transports on J2, from ANZAC and depending on if India still has planes or not.
if I take the money islands on J2, its +16 but I’ll lose 2 out of 3 transports. J3 I can take Malaya with transports bought J1.
Or, if I take Malaya first I’m still taking one of the other islands, its +7 ipc for me, -5 for ANZAC, -3 for India, and losing 1 out of 3 transports.My usual:
J1 attacking Hawaii, Philippines, Hong Kong, Borneo, and do build a mIC on the mainland.
J2 build another mIC on FIC, take Malaya and a 2nd island, often Sumatra, and lose one transport.
J3 another mIC on Malaya. Take last two money islands.I know it seems like over kill for factories (and sometimes I skip FIC and put one in Korea or Manchuria instead), but, man, it makes responding to threats easy. OTH, I don’t usually take India until J5 or so. I’m happy as long as they’re utterly neutered for a while. Same as China. I’m pushing for the income and, preferably Kansu (north west China) as fast as possible so I can bomb the snot out of Moscow starting J5 if its perfect.
-
Except Japan not controlling those island is a huge annoyance but it isn’t a gunshot to the head for Japan.
I totally disagree in Japan being able to do well without the money islands.
If Anzac get and hold just 2 of them it makes a huge difference to their economy. At the same time Japan makes less money and will have a harder time keeping up with the US.
20 IPC for Japan is 1/3 of what they usually make midgame.
Its exactly the same as with mainland china. if you don’t bring down china’s income early, you have to spend much more resources breaking them, possibly not even able to do it.The money island are the back bone of the Japanese economy - especially midgame
-
Elsass, Another reason to take Malaya J2 instead of a money island (besides risking transports) is that it cost the Anz a 5 IPC NO. So in reality it is the same. Yea Japan don’t get the extra 5 IPC DEI NO, but neither does the ANZ (allies need to hold Malaya), plus it is worth 3 IPC and has a naval base. If you are planning on building an IC there, the earlier you get it the better. Besides building fast movers for China/India, or navy in the South Pacific, building a transport inf and art on Malaya allows you to reclaim islands.
-
@Marshmallow:
When you let your opponent dictate events without contesting them, you lose.
If the Allies do not contest the money islands early and often, Japan can do as it wishes. Given ANZAC’s position and limited income, it really has only one effective sphere of influence and that is the Dutch East Indies. Until the US can effectively contest Japan there, it is ANZAC’s job. Failure to do it will result in a loss. Yes, that means throwing transports away so that Japan will have to counterattack the Dutch East Indies (a 13 IPC swing for taking any one of three members in the chain). It means having some kind of offensive force that can contest the waters around the Dutch East Indies.
Given ANZAC’s limited income, it might be necessary for the US to shuck two infantry or a fighter each turn down to ANZAC to free up ANZAC’s income for build transports and ground troops to contest the Dutch East indies. If Japan reacts by sending an invasion force down to ANZAC, so much the better because that takes pressure off India, China, Russia, and the US if the US and ANZAC have defended properly.
Simply put, ANZAC’s job is to poke the bear and get it to charge, then crawl into it’s shell and ride out the mauling. The US can help build the shell.
It is easiest for ANZAC to contest Java and sea zone 42. However, if ANZAC can manage to build a minor industrial complex on Queensland it can also reach all the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, and Malaya with only a one turn delay. This is often possible if Japan does not strip ANZAC of both it’s objectives (typically in the interest of killing India faster).
The Allies as a whole are an exercise in balance between offense and defense, and that includes ANZAC.
Marsh
I agree on most points but the US does not need to send transports down. Anzac can build 1 transport 1 inf 1 art each turn. That is enough to take back the island closest to australia each turn. Just make sure you got some air support ( bomber) US can clear japan naval presence there. This way the US will grow its navy while anzac will use its income to clear out the same island over and over again.
I’m pretty sure I said that the US can send planes down instead of or in addition to transports (bold face added):
@Marshmallow:
it might be necessary for the US to shuck two infantry or a fighter each turn down to ANZAC to free up ANZAC’s income for build transports and ground troops to contest the Dutch East indies.
If the US does send transports down when it’s safe, it accomplishes all of the following:
-
It bolsters the number of infantry defending ANZAC, allowing ANZAC to better resist a Japanese assault.
-
ANZAC can occasionally build a DD or a plane that can threaten sea zone 42.
-
It gives the US the option to contest the Dutch East Indies itself, forcing Japan to spend even more money defending it’s income. ANZAC could even land planes behind a US landing, creating an even bigger problem for Japan. (This threat in itself is big enough that Japan has to keep “liquid” forces around to deal with it even if the US and ANZAC never carry through with the threat.)
-
It parallels actual history (for those who care about that sort of thing).
As a general rule options are good and not having options is bad. If you only consider sending planes as the US, you limit your options. Yes, the US needs to send planes because those planes are also a threat. That being the case, don’t disregard the value of adding US ground forces to Australia.
Marsh
-
Suggested Topics
