ANZAC Autonomy! Anzac declares war on Japan separately from the UK

[Ruanek]

@Idi:

@Peck:

Saving your money with ANZAC is a great idea……What 3 things are you gonna build?

How about upgrading to a Major IC

I think with ANZAC it’s better to stick with the minor IC, considering the cost of upgrading it to a major exceeds their normal income per turn.

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Idi:

@FieldMarshalGames:

Why would they declare war?  What would be the basis of their claim?

Japanese aggression so very close to Australia.

What aggression?  If Japan does not break any of the Neutrality rules ie aggression, than there can be no basis for declaring war.  If the Japanese take any islands even NEAR Australia, then all three Allied powers including the US can already declare war.

Historically it would not happen, and in game play I don’t see why you would even want to do it?  Have an Allied minor of 10+ IPCs go to war alone against a Major Axis Power alone?

[knp7765]

@Idi:

@Peck:

Saving your money with ANZAC is a great idea……What 3 things are you gonna build?

How about upgrading to a Major IC

Can’t do that.  New South Wales is only worth 2 IPCs.  To upgrade to a major IC, territory has to be worth 3 IPCs or more.  You could build a second minor on Queensland.

[FieldMarshalGames]

@knp7765:

@Idi:

@Peck:

Saving your money with ANZAC is a great idea……What 3 things are you gonna build?

How about upgrading to a Major IC

Can’t do that.  New South Wales is only worth 2 IPCs.  To upgrade to a major IC, territory has to be worth 3 IPCs or more.  You could build a second minor on Queensland.

Does that also apply to ORIGINAL ICs?  I thought that was only for New ones…  ???

[Gargantua]

Have an Allied minor of 10+ IPCs go to war alone against a Major Axis Power alone?

France?

And yea, it applies to ALL IC’s, including your starting ones.

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Gargantua:

Have an Allied minor of 10+ IPCs go to war alone against a Major Axis Power alone?

France?

And yea, it applies to ALL IC’s, including your starting ones.

France is a) Not alone, UK and ANZAC are also at War with the European Axis  b) A MAJOR power, collecting over 20 IPC and with massive armies on the board.

It is just that France has already “lost” the war at the start-up of this game.

[Gargantua]

France doesn’t even make 20.

You said 10+ :P

And what about China?

They stand alone too, at 12 IPC’s + possibly the Burma Road each turn.

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Gargantua:

France doesn’t even make 20.

You said 10+ :P

And what about China?

They stand alone too, at 12 IPC’s + possibly the Burma Road each turn.

Ok, you got me there.  But honestly???  ANZAC would never declare ware alone.  And if they did… what could they possibly gain?

[Jennifer]

Honestly, I see absolutely no harm in allowing ANZAC to declare war on Japan prematurely.

Why?  Well, there are many points to why it may not be an entirely great idea for ANZAC to do this since Japan does massively out-weigh them in military might and, even if they are distracted with Chinese Territories, there is very little for the Japanese fleet (surface warships primarily) to do.  Doubly true in Alpha +2 due to the severe restrictions on Russia initiating an attack on Japan, the loss of a reason for Russia to initiate an attack (to collect Neutrals in the Middle East for cash) and the reinforcements to what we used to call Manchuria (now Manchuria and Korea.)

However, let’s pretend that Japan declared war on USA before Round 4. (for instance, Round 2 maybe.)  Maybe England does not want to be at war with Japan yet but ANZAC could really use some action?

Now, I know that Japan declaring war on England/ANZAC brings America into the war, but I do not believe that declaring war on America brings UK/ANZAC into war.  (And I am thinking of strategy that makes more sense in attacking America early and ignoring China.)

Since we’re really only talking about ANZAC declaring unilaterally, and not giving Japan the option to only declare against ANZAC, I do not see a downside here.

[Jennifer]

LoL, I think I’ve been here like 36 years…wink so really it’s only 1k posts a year…

In actuality, a lot of it is tactics discussion (Mostly AAR/2nd I admit, I am quite rusty at more advanced games like AAReHistorical, Anniversary and of course 1940) and then there are all those 2 infantry vs 1 infantry battles that take 40 rounds to come to conclusion.  :-D

[Idi Amin]

Anzac would recieve their NO’s right away. If Japan went after them it would put Japan so far out of position to do anything constructive….Who ever heard of a KAF strat?

[Jennifer]

No one heard of the Kill America First strategy in AAR and 2nd Ed. until I did it to people on a regular basis…who’s to say a strike on ANZAC to neutralize them early would not pay off?  At the very least, it’s worth the surprise factor! (Which is how I invented my flavor of Kill America First…)

[The Dessert Fox]

@Cmdr:

No one heard of the Kill America First strategy in AAR and 2nd Ed. until I did it to people on a regular basis…who’s to say a strike on ANZAC to neutralize them early would not pay off?  At the very least, it’s worth the surprise factor! (Which is how I invented my flavor of Kill America First…)

What is your version of the KAF jen? Mine is posted in the article submissions forum under: Revised Japan KAF (or Kill America First)

[Jennifer]

For which game?  AAR or 2nd?

I mean for specifics, the “general” idea is a surprise strike.  In both games you sort of set up like you normal would for the Indian Ocean with some extra transports then hit W. USA/Alaska at the same time with units from Japan/Solomons. (Units your opponent thought were going into Russia/Australia-New Zealand.)

In either event, you’re only creating the option for KAF by slowing down just a little in KRF.  If America plays along, you can go crush them, if they see the trap and defend, well you always did want to go to Maui and Sydney, right?

[knp7765]

KAF sounds like a very intriguing idea.  In just about every game that I have played where the Axis win, USA is the last Ally standing.  Except for one game I’ll never forget.  The US player made a huge blunder in leaving their capital very lightly defended.  Italy had conquered the Med and had moved some warships and a couple of transports with troops out into SZ 91 with the original intention of going after either South America or maybe the Panama Canal.  Then they saw Eastern US laying open and simply took advantage.  By the time US could get some troops over from Western US, Germany landed some fighters there to help the Italians defend and it was a lost cause for America.  After that round, all the Axis just sort of converged on North America taking it piece by piece.  Once USA was out, there was no help for Russia.

Normally, in previous games, I would say it is nearly impossible for the Axis to go after USA first.  However, with the new political rules of 1940, it might be more possible.

[Jennifer]

The idea of Kill America First, in my opinion and experience as a veteran of many games, only works if you surprise America.  America generally only sees the danger if you position your forces so that the attack is broadcast before actually launching the attack.  This is why I generally have my attack preformed in the Solomon Islands, Manchuria and Japan.  These are normal positions to stack anyway.  You’ll need the Solomons (realistically) to attack New Zealand, Australia and Hawaii. (you CAN do it from other zones, but you cannot hit America from those other zones!)

With luck, America assumes you have 3 transports to hit Hawaii, New Zealand and Australia, perhaps 4 transports.  5 Transports is really pushing it.  With 10 ground units, America’s going to notice you and do the math.  Not to mention, really?  I mean who puts 5 transports in the Solomons when the “goal” is Moscow by way of India?  No, 4 you can explain easily over the table. “Yea, I need 2 to hit Australia, see, because you have 2 guys there so I need at least 3 ground units, New Zealand and Hawaii both need to be attacked, so there ya go, I have 4 transports and personell.”

Anyway, with 3 or 4 transports in Solomons (plus ground units) and 3 or 4 transports off the coast of Japan (with ground units) its a matter of hitting Alaska AND W. USA.  Many a KAF has failed with just the assault on W. USA.  Hitting BOTH territories gives you the ability to start landing aircraft in one or the other territory if America cannot liberate both zones. (Otherwise, you can always tie up your carriers…I dont like it, but you can.)

Of course, even a failed KAF has its benefits to the axis.  For one, America’s pushing out men, tanks and planes left and right (mostly men and tanks) and not warships to protect the British fleet, transports to reclaim Africa and planes to defend Moscow.

[knp7765]

I can see how that would work.  I assume that if you have the time to build up that many transports and troops to fill them, Japan is not getting too much hassle from Britain or Russia and perhaps the USA has been concentrating too much on Europe.  In our group, the USA player tends to build more navy in the Pacific and Japan keeps having to fight naval battles and build more warships to replace their losses.  So, Japan tends to not be able to build up a strong enough invasion force.  Also, in most of our games, Japan and Germany work to squeeze Russia between them so a lot of what happens in the Pacific is more to hold America off rather than really going after them.

In games where Japan really does try going after America, I have found the key is usually taking and holding Alaska and creating a transport chain from Japan to Alaska to keep pouring in more units for the big attack.  Also you need to have a strong enough navy to protect those transports and maybe even blockade the west coast of America.  Even if you eliminate the US naval presence, you still need to protect those transports because the US can get at them with aircraft.  That still usually takes a few rounds to build up sufficient force, although as an overall Axis strategy that is also helpful because with USA building up to defend the west coast, Germany is given almost free reign in Europe and usually has a much easier time dealing with UK and Russia.

[Jennifer]

Right, Knp, the idea is that it is a surprise, crippling, attack on the American mainland (in previous games.)  That only really works if America goes after Europe with a vengenance and if America does not do so wisely. (In previous games that meant building in W. USA and walking to E. Canada so you always had a lot of ground forces to defend against KAF.  In reality, this shuck was designed to STOP KAF, I believe.)

In Global 1940, I am not sure if you can do a Kill America First strategy.  I think it would take so long to hit America that America would have to be blind not to see the danger. (not to mention, in every game I’ve played this far, America is 100% Pacific.)

In Global 1940, based purely on conjecture with no actual experience on how this would play out, I would say the following would have to be done.

1)  Get the Japanese fleet combined in SZ 6 on round 1.  Attack what you can in China without pulling your planes out of position.  One needs at least 2 transports for Philippines and 2 for Hawaii.  I would like to see 6 transports totally so you have 3 for each, to be honest, but that means building nothing but transports on R1 really. (26 Starting - 3 Transport leaves 5 IPC for other stuff and you start with 3 transports, so to get 6 you have to build 3 more.)

2. On Japan 2 you spank America in both Philippines and Hawaii taking Hong Kong as well (+3 Victory Cities, you should be 1 away from winning I believe.  Hong Kong, Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Kiangsu and Tokyo)  There is no reason America should have seen this coming so you should have crushed their fleet in Pearl (because most players combine here.  So you should have enough to crush this + 3 planes from Hawaii - I hope.)  Take planes as losses after damaging your capitol ships. (Pearl will repair them on your next turn anyway.  And you should have plenty of aircraft to reinforce during NCM.)

I’m not sure if this would work.  From here you can shuttle from Japan to Hawaii to W. USA with an attack on Alaska as well - perhaps.

[knp7765]

Interesting strategy.  If the US collects all it’s Pacific navy around Hawaii, then the Japanese Navy will surely pound it out of existence and have a strong edge out there.  In this game, if you wanted to use Alaska as a base so at least some of your invasion force would not have to rely on transports, you would either need to use the Aleutian Islands which would create an extra step on the way to W USA or build a naval base on Alaska so the transports can go straight to and from Japan.  Not completely sure how well you would be able to actually invade W US since I’m sure US would start building like crazy there.  On the other hand, if you stick all the rest of your navy off of W US, you could cut their income down alot with the convoy raiding.  Plus, you would be costing US about 3 NOs, 4 if you could take and hold Mexico or even Central America.  Also, with Alaska or Hawaii as a base, you could use strategic bombers to blast the WUS IC and keep costing them repair points.  So maybe US couldn’t build as much defense as they would like there and in 2-4 rounds, Japan might have enough invasion force to take W US.  Again, with US working against Japan, Germany and Italy could run amuk in Europe and Africa so it helps the overall Axis plans as well.

One thing though, with this strategy, aren’t you pretty much forgetting any chance of grabbing up the money islands in DEI?  Do you think that India and ANZAC would present too many problems while you are dealing with and building up against USA?

[Idi Amin]

OMG who plays AAR 2nd edtion anymore anyways……its a kids game compared to Global 1940. Although the rules don’t change weekly like global though.