How to handle money islands as Anzac/UK


  • @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.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @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.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @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).


  • @weddingsinger:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @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

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    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:

    @weddingsinger:

    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.

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @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


  • And behold!  We are back where we started.  To send US forces down to Australia or not to send?  Ti send the whole fleet or not to send?  I still say that I like having America in two places.  Earlier posts have proved that Japan cannot ignore either the north or the south without difficulty.  The best Allied offensive maneuvers rely on mobility, calling your enemy out of his armor, and not allowing the Axis to focus it all in one place.

    The main argument for splitting up an American task force is that Japan typically has to deal with both halves.

    Japan does not have the resources, units, or incentive to go after you on both fronts.  Just sit back and keep the imperialists sweating because they are spread too far as a result of your threats.

    I have three ways of cracking the nut.  My personal favorite, a smaller aerial and low-cost naval force in Australia to counterattack Japanese counterattacks in the Dutch East Indies.  Meanwhile, a larger American navy up north is preventing an equal portion of the IJN and its airforce from moving anywhere.  Japan eventually gets stretched too far and forced to spend more IPCs on the Pacific than Asia.

    Another option: the historical approach of hitting Japan at its Pacific core.  The obvious place to go is the Caroline Islands where you can threaten so many places at once.  Iwo Jima, New Guinea, and others can be used as well.  The problem with this strategy is that it requires quite a bit of spending in order to make keep an American fleet safe in the heat of the Japanese forces.

    And the last option: the late-war method of subs and bombers.  Spam the Pacific with so many submarines that Japan is getting convoyed uncontrollably and afraid to push around its transports.  Meanwhile, use Russia as a springboard to bomb Japan and Chinese factories as well as get a land war started up north.

    These are just a few ways you can hurt Japan.  There are many other great Allied strategies such as the famous Alaskan/Aleutian shuttle line and the lesser-known “Fortress Singapore.”  But nearly all strategies require distraction, pressure, and keeping your cool.  The point is this: don’t just stack all your American navy in one place.  Unless Japan has become inferior in their naval assets or unable to spend on ships, you’ll just spend the whole game doing nothing (unless you manage to get deep enough into the Pacific that Japan cannot rely on blocking you with a single navy in Japan/Philippines/etc.

    Hopes this helps you control that beast of a nation.


  • I usually play as Axis, but in the past the worst problem for me is if the U.S. can gather its starting assets together, maybe a US1 buy, too, all of Japan’s starting isn’t enough to fend it off, so you either have to abandon SZ6, or overspend to keep up, which leaves the money islands vulnerable.

    Its why, as Japan, I now prefer J1 and taking out Hawaii and Philippines.  At most you lose a sub, putting the U.S. behind for a change while your other assets shield your transports from the weak Anzac fleet.

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @Charles:

    And behold!  We are back where we started.  To send US forces down to Australia or not to send?  Ti send the whole fleet or not to send?

    All I’m saying is don’t discount the possibility. Every game is different. A flexible attitude will lead to more victory!

    Marsh


  • Amen.


  • @weddingsinger:

    I usually play as Axis, but in the past the worst problem for me is if the U.S. can gather its starting assets together, maybe a US1 buy, too, all of Japan’s starting isn’t enough to fend it off, so you either have to abandon SZ6, or overspend to keep up, which leaves the money islands vulnerable.

    Its why, as Japan, I now prefer J1 and taking out Hawaii and Philippines.  At most you lose a sub, putting the U.S. behind for a change while your other assets shield your transports from the weak Anzac fleet.

    I agree, but as discussed I generally do a hit and run on the Hawaiian fleet, and end up at Wake with about 1/2 the IJN. I typically lose a sub and dd in the sz26 battle, and also my dd blocker left in sz26 in the US counter attack for a total of 3 ships (1ss, and 2 dds). I still think it is well worth doing though. Hitting both sz26, and sz35 will kill off 47 IPCs worth of US navy, plus the Phil ftr making it 57 IPCs in navy/air. That is more then the spending allowance of the US in the first turn (52 IPCs). These are units that would get away in a J2 or later attack in most cases. Then add the Brit BB and territorial gains and yea it is a pretty damn strong opening move.

    Sucker punching the US in the face causes some issues for them, and they will be torn on what side to build on. If they go Pac they are way behind so can’t challenge the Japanese for several turns. They would need to spend most of their income in the Pac for 2-3 turns just to get to even par w/Japan (and the Germans will love it). Yea they can probably send the home fleet up to Hawaii on the first turn as long as the Anz backs them up, but they really can’t do anything once they get there. Maybe move to the safety of Queensland and wait for their supply chain to catch up. The Japanese can just hop scotch to Caroline’s then probably to Philippines where they set up a defensive posture (maybe merging some more of the Imperial navy/air force).

    I don’t see the US sending the home fleet over to Europe (something they do on occasion), because then there is no chance in the Pac. So if they want to go Europe they pretty much have to start from scratch because they only have a cruiser and transport. So going Europe means the Japanese don’t have to worry for a long time.

    Oh BTW if you really want to F with the US have the Germans hit the US 101 mini fleet G1 with a sub (when you know there will be a J1 attack). If you get lucky the cruiser may not even get to fire, and the transport sinks too.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    How about combining this with sea-lion?

    US/UK will not expect sea-lion with US active so they might overlook it and just think your german build of carrier + destr + sub as a way to get to the med or secure your fleet.
    Getting london while US is unprepared might cause them huge issues, go london and japan takes hawai and puts pressure on Anzac, go pacific and london will be in german hands for a long time giving italy the med and quickly over 40 ipcs.

    Most would think that Sea lion is off the table w/J1 attack because of possible US interference. Having Germany build some navy G1 just to keep it on the table is a good idea IMO. Taking out the Hawaiian fleet defiantly puts more pressure on the USA, and they do have to choose where to drop their first buy (DC/San Fran or a split).

    Yea if the US see’s the possibility of Sea lion they can react, but it could leave the Japanese unchecked if they go overboard. In order to inhibit Sea lion the US needs to react on the first turn. They would need to at a minimum send some starting air units toward London to change the odds of the G3 battle. Like you said if they ignore Europe and go all in pac on the first turn then yea Germany gets a green light, because a US2 build at DC is too late.

    Plus it would have a ripple effect on the UK. Even with a minimum G1 naval build, if the US first build is in the Pac and no help is coming then the UK would need to turtle.


  • @WILD:

    Oh BTW if you really want to F with the US have the Germans hit the US 101 mini fleet G1 with a sub (when you know there will be a J1 attack). If you get lucky the cruiser may not even get to fire, and the transport sinks too.

    Oh, heck yeah.

    Hmm… I’ll have to game out some ideas.  In the past, I’ve even sent two subs down to SZ 91 to guarantee sinking that UK cruiser (to help Italy) even though I know it means Germany will pay for it elsewhere.  Maybe I’ll look through some similar ideas for the U.S.

    Have also tried sending a bomber to hit the UK airfield, all but guaranteeing they’ll have to spend a few $$ in order to do Taranto.  Have basically sacrificed the German battleship so I could send both German bombers to hit the UK factory on G1, too.  That was a tough game for him.  Sea Lion was a breeze on G4.


    I agree G1 you should strongly consider navy.  I suppose it depends, but without a G1 DOW on Russia, its good to be flexible.  Worst case scenario, I find it very useful to have transports to quickly take Germans against Russia (never mind being able to get more troops up to Norway in a jam) AND to be able to park German ships in SZ 98 and take 6-8 ipc from UK every single turn until the U.S./UK are forced to step in.  A carrier paired with the cruiser and a destroyer and sub is plenty for that.

  • '19 '17 '16

    Most Axis players don’t like navy too much, unless you’re aiming to swing it down to the Med. That can be a strong move. Otherwise, what’s it for? If you’re doing a Sea Lion, you can buy the 10 TTs, next turn buy the CV in SZ110 to protect them.


  • Not saying I would do this every game but German Navy can be useful

    1. Protect and reinforce Norway
    2. Invade Leningrad
    3. Keep Channel free of allied shipping
    4. Convoy raiding UK home islands.
    5. Force US into going Spanish route, thus activating neutrals for axis.

    If going hard against Russia, then Germans buy all tanks mech inf art, but if playing a more balanced game then building a smart navy has its uses.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts