poke through the games from the last 2 vs 2 tournament. That is where switch got all riled up at.
US Pacific Strategy
-
@Cmdr:
Bunnies, I have to admit, “Operation Hollywood” made me chuckle!
Would you mind terribly much if I wrote my article on how to take down America first and used that as my title? (It’s going to be a while before I write it, so stop salivating Djensen, you’ll get it when I’m done! I just want to iron out a few more wrinkles. Right now people are not expecting it, I need them to get some practice defending against it before I know it works most of the time.)
I can’t take credit for “Operation Hollywood”. The name and the plan were cooked up a long time ago by - I forget who. All I remember is that it was a plan to hit W. US, pretty sure it was through W. Canada.
Bunnies P
-
In response to the initial post, yes there are some good US pac strats. And for the purposes of calling something a KJF, you don’t need to actually take Japan usually either booting them out of Asia or taking the big islands is usually enough, unless Germany is next too Moscow or stacking in Cauc or something.
If I go with a US Pac strat it revolves around lots of ftrs and ACs. The ftr/ac combo forces Japan to at least leave a token defense in sz 60 once you have 2 ac/4 ftrs in Sz 55, and as you get to 3/6 and 4/8 it all but assures that most of the big capital ships will all be back in Sz 60. As soon as you have the slightest def advantage you move to Sol is. You may need another turn or two of build up there, but with the ftrs and ACs at Sol you can now cover the entire Pac with your ftrs and it is only a matter of time before the big islands fall. The problem is you have to be on your game with Russia and the UK and need to at least give the US 6-7 turns. Typically you can make the Sol move by round 4 and it will probably be another rd or 2 before you can then advance to EI. Also if Japan is going full steam to defend against you it could take longer as well, but then the Asia push migh be a little weaker.
I like to unify my UK fleet in Sz 30, if Japan attacks they lose some ftrs and have a BB and AC way out of range (if they survived) and this gives the US the ability to have Pac dominance a lot earlier. If they don’t attack you might be able to swing some of the UK ships around Aus and meet up with the US at the Sol is.
Thanks Darth!
Do you still go for the Sing IC build, in this case? Germany, seeing this build up will need to push harder for Russia, I’m assuming; as they would expect that Japan is going to be late on arrival? Maybe? I’ve read before that in a KJF, Germany needs to push for Russia.
I’m going to give this a go in our next game, to mix things up a bit. As stated before, we have yet to have a match where the Pacific is contested and Japan gets off too easy.
Yeah, I’ve seen lots of threads on the UK fleet unification. Do many of you actaully attack the fleet on J1? You’re gonna lose a few fighters and proably forgo China by doing this, right? Either way, that sounds like a good move, if you plan to build US heavy in the Pacific….either weakens Japan from the get go, OR UK fleet can join up.
Thanks for all the ideas everyone.
-
Thanks Darth!
No love. >.>
Do you still go for the Sing IC build, in this case? Germany, seeing this build up will need to push harder for Russia, I’m assuming; as they would expect that Japan is going to be late on arrival? Maybe? I’ve read before that in a KJF, Germany needs to push for Russia.
Well, let’s see what DM says.
I’m going to give this a go in our next game, to mix things up a bit. As stated before, we have yet to have a match where the Pacific is contested and Japan gets off too easy.
Yeah, I’ve seen lots of threads on the UK fleet unification. Do many of you actaully attack the fleet on J1? You’re gonna lose a few fighters and proably forgo China by doing this, right? Either way, that sounds like a good move, if you plan to build US heavy in the Pacific….either weakens Japan from the get go, OR UK fleet can join up.
Thanks for all the ideas everyone.
If UK unites its Indian and Australian fleets, either UK unites at SZ38 northwest of Australia or it unites at SZ 30 west-southwest of Australia. One sea zone, but it’s a big difference as the SZ38 unification allows Japan to throw in a fodder sub and destroyer, whereas SZ30 forces Japan to drop a capital ship (battleship or carrier) or a fighter with each loss. (SZ38 is far more threatening but Japan can counter far easier)
Assuming SZ 30:
–
Possible Jap attack on SZ30: battleship carrier 4 fighter vs UK: 2 trns 1 sub 1 destr 1 carrier 1 fighter probable loss 1 Jap fighter and UK: 2 trns 1 sub. This is risky for Japan with poor dice, but with good dice, Japan may scoop the entire UK navy for 2 fighters. If Japan retreats after first round to SZ38, anticipated Jap loss 1 fighter anticipated UK loss 2 trns 1 sub, and UK is forced to go directly west towards Africa (as if they don’t, Japan can crush them).
In any event, doing this leaves the rest of the Jap fighters without a way to Pearl (they can’t land anywhere), but Jap: 2 fighter 1 bomber are still in range of China.
This is probably better if UK bomber is in range of SZ 38. Rest of Jap fleet can unite with Jap battleship and carriers at SZ 38 for fodder, and UK navy forced to move west as described above.
But this DOES allow US a quick start in the Pacific with its additional sub, carrier, and fighter.
–
Possible Jap attack on SZ30 part II: battleship carrier 3 fighter vs UK: 2 trns 1 sub 1 destr 1 carrier 1 fighter probable loss 1 Jap fighter and 2 UK trns. This is also risky for Japan with poor dice, but again Japan can retreat to SZ 38 for 1 btl 2 carrier 2 fig, but if there’s a UK bomber at Persia, it’s anticipated UK: 1 sub 1 destr 1 carrier 1 fighter 1 bomber vs Jap: 2 carrier 2 fig 1 btl (23334 vs 033444 but Japan forced to OOL free battleship hit, carrier, fighter, fighter, carrier, battleship so it becomes horribly expensive very quickly).
However, this allows Japan to hit Pearl with 1 sub 1 destr 1 fig 1 bomber (probably transport too, assuming Kwangtung transport survived to pick up the J1 transport slack) and China with 2 fig.
This is probably OK only if UK bomber NOT in range of SZ38. No additional Jap fodder at SZ38 (as Jap fodder used at Pearl) means risking both Jap carriers may be knocked out by end of UK2, and with the loss of Jap air on the UK navy J1, the loss of Jap air on the US navy J1, and the UK counter, Japan is ill prepared to deal with a KJF.
This is probably a bad plan if UK bomber in range. It is very vulnerable to bad dice first with the J1 attack on the UK fleet, then again with the UK2 counter (I can hardly stress how nasty this possibility is especially with the UK bomber but even possibly without), and again with the J1 attack on US fleet, although that particular risk can be mitigated by using the Jap transport east of Japan as extra fodder (assuming the Kwangtung transport survived). It very probably drains Jap air at UK, and very possibly some at US even with transport fodder. But it does present some chance of taking on Pearl, China, and the UK fleet.
-
“No love. >.>”
Bunnies, you ARE da man!
Geez….I never thought about the UK bomber landing in Perisa; or even realized that it could reach for that matter… :oops:
I just gotta get some more games under my belt.
Thanks
-
Bunnies laid it out pretty good there. But NO, I don’t build a US IC in Sin.
Before I say any more, this UK/US strat assumes no Germany naval buy on G1. It can still work with a Ger AC buy but it gets a bit more tricky and if they buy more trns or threaten unification in Sz 7 on G2, all bets are off and here you’ll need the US to focus on the Atlantic.I don’t like the IC b/c you need Russia to solely focus on Germany and they can’t spare the extra defense, so I’m not sure how long you’d be able to hold it. I like to retreat the Allied forces and use them to either help in trading Ukr or nit pick Japan as they move their initial inf into range.
I also like a nice stack of about 5 inf, 1 aa in Per for the UK, with Bomber to anyone of the following Mos/Cauc/Novo/Yak, and UK ftrs to Wrus.
If you are brave you can even pick up the 2 inf on Aus and have them sitting in Sz 30 on your unification move. This makes an even more inviting target for Japan, but again the cost is high for them and if they see the bomber in Novo/Mos/Yak they may think something is up. It also weakens the attack on Pearl. This means if they choose to attack China, Sz 30 and Pearl, while they should win all three, there is still a chance one or more goes horribly wrong for them, not to mention they still have to worry about the UK bom which means Sz 60 (or even sz 61) could be in jeopardy on UK 2.
For the US buys in rd 1, I’ll go 2 AC and 1 ftr or BB and AC and the DD from sz 20 to Sz 55. In the Atlantic you have 2 trns and 1 dd and you start out with several ground units on North America and Hi.
The UK most likely will need to buy an AC and go to Alg on both UK 1 and 2 (or uk 2 and 3), as the US follows up with trns and DD. You might have to even unify in Sz 8 in rd 1.
Now with your fleet unification in Sz 30 (if it wasn’t attacked), you pull the 3 inf from Aus in rd 2 and go back to Sz 30. This allows you to hit Afr or the Middle east in Rd 3 as your Atlantic ships continue to unload in Alg. Or if you already pulled the 2 inf you can immediately go to Afr.
If your fleet is sunk, again it costs Japan some fairly powerful units and with the US 1 naval buy you already have naval parity, you may even beable to move to the Sol Is in rd 2 if Japan bought and IC on J1.
-
If you are brave you can even pick up the 2 inf on Aus and have them sitting in Sz 30 on your unification move. This makes an even more inviting target for Japan, but again the cost is high for them and if they see the bomber in Novo/Mos/Yak they may think something is up.
I did this in my last game as the Allies, sorta. I only brought 1 man on the transport because the economics of that battle tilted toward Japan (if I recall correctly) when there are 2 men on the transport, especially if Japan exercises the option to retreat.
It also weakens the attack on Pearl. This means if they choose to attack China, Sz 30 and Pearl, while they should win all three, there is still a chance one or more goes horribly wrong for them, not to mention they still have to worry about the UK bom which means Sz 60 (or even sz 61) could be in jeopardy on UK 2.
In my current game as the Axis I attacked SZ60, Pearl (heavy), and China, and won all three (low luck helped). I had to storm China with only 7 men as all my planes were occupied, but since my transport off Kwangtung wasn’t attacked by the UK destroyer I could reinforce FIC with men from the islands and a surviving plane from SZ 60 to prevent its capture. It set up Japan quite well and they’re still doing pretty good (6th turn) even though the US is doing a KJF strategy.
-
I’d almost tip the scales economically in favor of Japan hitting SZ 30. I’d rather lose the British fleet in SZ 30 and do massive damage to Japan then lose the American fleet in SZ 52 and do no damage to pitifully little damage to the Japanese fleet.
Not to mention, Japan’s now sitting with a battleship a good two or three turns away from the American war effort.
Or, Japan can ignore the SZ 30 fleet, and risk the allies trying to unify in the Pacific. (I honestly wouldnt, but the threat is present none the less.)
I’ve found, however, that even players who CLAIM they’ll attack the SZ 30 fleet if you unify, no one really WILL attack it. And he knows who I am talking about. Twice it was presented, twice he failed to attack it. So the SZ 30 fleet unification is pretty safe all in all. Far safer then running the fleet in multiple directions (SZ 42, SZ 45, SZ 59, SZ 34, SZ 52 (Fighter)). Now you allow Japan to use Battleships to clean up your scattered forces without doing damage.
On top of that, the unified British fleet (even with only one infantry on it) can easily go to India or hit E. Indies. That’s a BAD spot for England to have an Industrial Complex! Though, I’d prefer 2 infantry on the transport, that way you can have 7 infantry and an AA gun in India on UK 2 if the fleet is NOT hit.
-
@Cmdr:
I’ve found, however, that even players who CLAIM they’ll attack the SZ 30 fleet if you unify, no one really WILL attack it. And he knows who I am talking about
That wasn’t me. But I would like to point out that if you leave something else open at the same time you unite at SZ 30, your opponent is not OBLIGED to take the lesser bait of SZ 30.
That is to say, if your opponent determined that given the particular moves you made, that attacking SZ 30 was less preferable to another move, why would your opponent be LOCKED into taking SZ 30?
As well, just because your opponent chose not to hit SZ 30 doesn’t mean unification at SZ 30 is sound. Perhaps in doing so you left another opening that was more profitable than attacking SZ 30.
Attacking SZ 30 is not something you can force your opponent to do. It is something your opponent can CHOOSE to do, and when choosing to do so, your opponent can choose to full attack, strafe, or not attack at all.
-
I have attacked SZ30 in SEVERAL games… usually with a Japan win, though with some significant losses (the loss of the FIGs is the most detrimental, especially when the US just goes KGF after Japan blows their wad in SZ30)
Not sure if I ever attacked or avoided a unified SZ30 fleet in my past games against Jen.
Learned from bitter experience…
1. Japan CAN kill the SZ30 fleet, but then the USA just goes KGF, and Japan sans 60% of its air power is too slow to do any damage to Russia.
2. Japan FAILING to kill the SZ30 fleet if they attack is DRT (Dead Right There) if the Allies go KJF
3. Ignoring SZ30 requires that Japan go TRN heavy on J1 and consolidate their fleet and prepare for a grind-out…
4. If a J1 attack on a UK SZ30 combined fleet goes VERY well for Japan, it leaves the Allies in a serious pickle… Africa, Southern Asia, and the Pacific are all Axis controlled VERY quickly.The odds though are for a far weaker Japan than is normal, a SLIGHTLY strengthened Germany, and a stronger Russia. The gain for the Axis is insufficient to justify the prolonged income of Russia
And for those keeping track at home, that IS a change from my position a year or so ago…
-
No one is obliged to attack anything. That’s not the point I was trying to make. The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.
So why is that?
It’s not because there is a better target anywhere on the board. It’s Japan 1, not like someone left 5 bombers open to an infantry attack. So why don’t they do it?
Because the cost to Japan is astronomical. Just a singular round of combat lower then predicted (and I’m talking as little as Japan getting hit one more then expected, or hitting one less target then expected) and the battle is lost for Japan. It’s a VERY high risk, VERY low reward move. It chews up a lot of high value resources and sinks a lot of worthless junk that England almost always never has on UK 2 anyway.
Let’s look at the prospects:
Japan attacks SZ 30:
Japan: 4 Fighters, Carrier, Battleship
England: Fighter, 2 Transports, Submarine, Destroyer, Carrier (note: Carrier dies last unless England is getting pounded, then fighter dies last)Odds: Japan wins with a Damaged Battleship and a Carrier (note: the carrier would have to die after the fighters due to landing zone issues.)
30% chance of Japan being wiped out.
That leaves Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, Submarine to hit SZ 52. (Assuming you use the bomber to support your infantry to take out the American fighter in China.)
Japan: Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, Submarine (Note the carrier in SZ 50 cannot be brought because it is dedicated for fighter recovery from SZ 30 battle, it can be moved after combat if the fighters have been lost in SZ 30 as expected.)
America: Submarine, Carrier, Fighter (in that order)Odds: Damaged Battleship, lost Submarine and/or lost fighter as well.
So what does that leave Japan with?
2 Battleships
2 Carriers
Destroyer
1 or 2 FightersThat’s a very large kick in the pants to Japan. And don’t forget that one of those Battleships and Carriers is out in the middle of no where, assuming they live in the first place.
-
@Cmdr:
The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.
I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…
A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.
-
@ncscswitch:
Learned from bitter experience…
1. Japan CAN kill the SZ30 fleet, but then the USA just goes KGF, and Japan sans 60% of its air power is too slow to do any damage to Russia.Lol. Come on, you should know you need air with Japan. Either you need to defend KJF or you need to trade in Asia or you need to reinforce Ukraine/Caucasus . . . you need those fighters!
2. Japan FAILING to kill the SZ30 fleet if they attack is DRT (Dead Right There) if the Allies go KJF
So why didn’t you strafe and pull back to SZ 38? You don’t HAVE to kill the SZ 30 fleet.
3. Ignoring SZ30 requires that Japan go TRN heavy on J1 and consolidate their fleet and prepare for a grind-out…
“Ignoring” SZ 30 or not, Japan should ALWAYS build 3 Trn on J1; can you give me the circumstances when 3 transports is a BAD idea for Japan, even if the Kwangtung transport survives UK1? And just why would Japan “consolidate its fleet” - sounds like you’re talking defensively - when it should either do Pearl or SZ30 strafe or both?
4. If a J1 attack on a UK SZ30 combined fleet goes VERY well for Japan, it leaves the Allies in a serious pickle… Africa, Southern Asia, and the Pacific are all Axis controlled VERY quickly.
The odds though are for a far weaker Japan than is normal, a SLIGHTLY strengthened Germany, and a stronger Russia. The gain for the Axis is insufficient to justify the prolonged income of Russia
And for those keeping track at home, that IS a change from my position a year or so ago…
So just what DO the Rus1 and UK1 turns look like? Where’s that UK bomber? What did the India fighter and Australian sub/transport do?
-
Strafing SZ30 is a problem in and of itself…
The FIC FIG, if it is brought to the battle, is DEAD no matter what (no range to leave SZ30)
So just ATTACKING SZ30 guarantees that Japan will be shy almost 20% of their FIGs, regardless of the outcome of the SZ30 strafe and other battles.
-
@ncscswitch:
Strafing SZ30 is a problem in and of itself…
The FIC FIG, if it is brought to the battle, is DEAD no matter what (no range to leave SZ30)
So just ATTACKING SZ30 guarantees that Japan will be shy almost 20% of their FIGs, regardless of the outcome of the SZ30 strafe and other battles.
Man, if you’re hitting 2 trns 1 sub 1 destr 1 carrier 1 fighter, with a battleship, a carrier, and fighters, you’d damn well better expect a fighter to bite it anyways.
You keep talking like losing fighters is something horrible Japan will never recover from. It’s bitter, but if Japan obtains a better position by dropping fighters than it would by keeping its fighters, then obviously Japan should drop fighters.
Get what you want, and pay for it.
-
The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…
If Japan did a FULL consolidation in SZ30, then you have 2 TRN instead of 1 as Japan at the start of J1. That is a nice advantage from the start for Japan.
If the Allies Consolidate, do the same as Japan… Do Pearl Ultra-Light, take China, take Bury. Build TRN and some INF. Consolidate the Japan Fleet into 2 combat groups, with a straggler unit or two.
What does UK do then?
Run Away to the Atlantic? 4 turns that the Axis gets to largely ignore those forces
Protect Australia? The US better be spending money in the Pacific, or the UK Fleet is going to get sunk in short order with minimal Japan losses.
Shield/Counter Egypt? You are going to run out of land units to transport in short order, leaving a UK fleet with no real threat in the Indian Ocean.Against the SZ30 Unification, Japan simply builds TRNs (with the remainder as land units) and groups their starting fleets into 2 major clusters. Anchored with 2 BB’s and 2 AC’s plus SIX starting FIGs, the UK fleet is pretty much worthless as an attack force against the Japs. The only concern for Japan is a merge of the UK and USA forces… and a “fodder TRN” build J1 pretty much blocks that effort from the start.
-
@ncscswitch:
The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…
Man, I KNOES you aren’t talkin to me.
-
@ncscswitch:
@Cmdr:
The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.
I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…
A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.
I was not referring to you, however. I never got a chance to use it against you, you stopped playing me when I demonstrated that KJF did not result in Germany reigning supreme over Russia in short order.
-
@Bunnies:
@ncscswitch:
The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…
Man, I KNOES you aren’t talkin to me.
That’s the only reason I DO a SZ 30 unification with England. I want Japan to attack me. Even if I lose worse than expected, man, the Allies come out on top!
A) You don’t have enough to do Pearl now. Luckily no one caught my mistake so I can correct it myself, the forces I listed to attack SZ 52, if you hit SZ 30, CANNOT BE DONE. The only units you can bring are Transport, Battleship, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber. The reason is that the SZ 30 carrier is already designated to go to SZ 38 and retrieve surviving fighters, therefore it cannot ALSO be ordered to stand by and recover fighters from SZ 52.
B) I’ll trade you some British units 4 rounds from the action for American units that can be used immediately against Japan to press the advantage.
C) I’ll trade you 4 dead fighters with Japan to save an American fighter. Especially since Japan normally doesn’t lose ANY fighters on Round 1!
-
@Cmdr:
@ncscswitch:
@Cmdr:
The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.
I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…
A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.
I was not referring to you, however. I never got a chance to use it against you, you stopped playing me when I demonstrated that KJF did not result in Germany reigning supreme over Russia in short order.
Actually I stopped playing you for a completely different reason that shall remain unspecified here.
-
The attack is French Indochina fighter plus 2 East Indies sea zone fighters vs SZ 30; Caroline Islands sea zone fighter plus bomber sub and destroyer hit Hawaii’s sub/carrier/fighter.
As I wrote before, UK can do a vicious counter under some (even most circumstances) after Japan strafes SZ 30 then retreats to SZ 38. (Even with the vicious counter, I still do NOT recommend an all-out attack), and that’s assuming there’s no bad dice on the Jap 3 fig 1 carrier 1 btl vs 2 trns 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 carrier 1 fighter attack.
But it IS feasible to hit SZ 30 and still do Pearl and China - particularly under Low Luck. Which I am not a fan of.
Suggested Topics
