Thank you!
Japanese Strategy
-
@Cmdr:
Note, on Round 1 there is literally nothing that can hit the Japanese fleet in SZ 6 so, in a hypthetical situation, Japan would be safe in purchasing transports on Round 1 and sending all their ships to other points on the board.
Of course, if Russia moves her fighters eastward, instead of the more traditional westward, there is a chance you might need to move a carrier/battleship or something up to SZ 6 to protect the transports against Unprovoked Russian Hegemony, but I do not see this being the case in most games.
Yes, I move a large portion of my Japanese fleet built around two carriers towards the DEI on round 1. But you will notice in my photo that after round 3 I have three fully loaded carriers in zone 6 or within range of zone 6. Then I have the option of moving the force in the DEI further west if needed. In this current game the U.S. is not putting a lot of pressure on Japan yet. If the U.S. spent all its income in the Pacific starting round 1 then this would change everything.
-
Hmm…but theoretically, a heavy stack at Pearl on J1 or J2 encourages America to look to Europe giving Japan a freer hand and since it is relatively simple for Japan to get 6 Victory Cities, wouldnt this be wise?
You start with Japan and Kiangsu.
It is relatively simple to get Kwangtung (Hong Kong), Hawaii and Philippines if you crush the American navy early.
That is 5 of 6, all you need is South Wales or India and of the two, India is significantly harder to get, so crush Australia. No? Then Germany only has to posture and make threats while Japan does the hard work. (Since Germany needs either London or Ottowa and both of those are going to be significantly harder for Germany to get than Japan to get Australia.)
Or am I missing something?
-
It should not be safe for America to stage within range of the combined Japanese fleet…for this discussion lets assume 2 Battleships, 3 Carriers, 4 DD, 1-4 subs, 2 Cruisers and 6 or more air units. America is limited to 3 ships per turn off the west coast, plus air and ships it can build on the other board and bring around.
In the first 3 turns America must choose…match the Japanese navy or build transports as threat.
If they match, simple infantry will hold Japan from 1-2 transports.
If they build threat and move North they are off a naval base, and you can afford to send a token fleet to sea zone 6 (maybe 1 battleship, 2 destroyers and station 2 planes on Japan. If they pull the trigger, you can respond in kind from the Carolines.This still leaves threat on Hawaii, New South Wales, and you are able to build transports and keep them safe in first sea zone 6, then the Carolines.
Remember for America to match Japans starting navy, they are almost exclusively building in the Pacific and thus ignoring the Atlantic…this should be obvious by turn 2, and perhaps you make adjustments since a world of hurt is coming your way.
This theory craft is for a situation in which the US splits its income and no more than 26-30 IPCs are going towards Japan while the US is neutral.
-
@Cmdr:
Hmm…but theoretically, a heavy stack at Pearl on J1 or J2 encourages America to look to Europe giving Japan a freer hand and since it is relatively simple for Japan to get 6 Victory Cities, wouldnt this be wise?
You start with Japan and Kiangsu.
It is relatively simple to get Kwangtung (Hong Kong), Hawaii and Philippines if you crush the American navy early.
That is 5 of 6, all you need is South Wales or India and of the two, India is significantly harder to get, so crush Australia. No? Then Germany only has to posture and make threats while Japan does the hard work. (Since Germany needs either London or Ottowa and both of those are going to be significantly harder for Germany to get than Japan to get Australia.)
Or am I missing something?
I don’t believe so, that is why my initial thoughts make me thing the game favors the axis under the new rules…However, others have been play testing and claim it is very close.
My theory is that most players fight for India and the Australia option is disregarded. I have no idea how many play tests have focused on Hawaii and New South Wales, instead of Calcutta.
It is hard to hold Hawaii sometimes, so I favor taking it last for the win…it is closer to your Production base, and Australia is farther away…this makes liberating New south wales a daunting task for the allies.
When I play the allies, I figure I have time in Europe and I focus on Japan early, goal is building infantry in Australia and Hawaii to force a large Japanese transport build late game. India just buys time. Then I shift to a large Europe effort and later balance out the builds based on board…the Fact that America has to split, handicaps the allies in my opinion. Again, others have done the play testing, I will have to try this as well.
-
@Cmdr:
Hmm…but theoretically, a heavy stack at Pearl on J1 or J2 encourages America to look to Europe giving Japan a freer hand and since it is relatively simple for Japan to get 6 Victory Cities, wouldnt this be wise?
You start with Japan and Kiangsu.
It is relatively simple to get Kwangtung (Hong Kong), Hawaii and Philippines if you crush the American navy early.
That is 5 of 6, all you need is South Wales or India and of the two, India is significantly harder to get, so crush Australia. No? Then Germany only has to posture and make threats while Japan does the hard work. (Since Germany needs either London or Ottowa and both of those are going to be significantly harder for Germany to get than Japan to get Australia.)
Or am I missing something?
Sorry, I should have explained that we always play for total victory never for VCs. Of course this does not mean that we take our games to the bitter end. After a while you learn when one side is in a hopeless situation and its time to start a new game. It just seems more realistic to go for total victory. Of course it helps that we are retired and do not need quick games.
-
Actually Germany needs London or Moscow. If the allies hold 4 of the 11, the axis only have 7. The likely held are: Washington, Ottawa, London and Moscow. As the allies, I focus on Egypt then Rome. Without Egypt, Germany needs London And Moscow. This gives America time to retake London before Moscow falls. With London and Egypt its game over for the axis in Europe unless Germany outproduces America and can seize London for good.
-
Victory for the Axis if they control 8 out 11 Victory Cities on the Europe board or 6 out of 8 Victory cities on the Pacific board. (Why is one named for Europe and the other an Ocean?? Should be Atlantic/Pacific, IMHO.)
To get 8 on the Europe board Germany/Italy needs:
- Paris (France)
- Berlin (East Germany)
- Rome (S. Italy)
- Moscow (Russia)
- Leningrad (Novgorod)
- Stalingrad (Volgogrod)
- Warsaw (W. Poland)
And one of the following: Washington D.C. (E. USA); London (England) or Ottowa (Quebec); Cairo (Egypt)
Granted, it may be plausible to get all of that, but one has to assume Egypt is liberated by the time Moscow falls. At least, it always is in my games.
-
As for not playing to VC victory. Generally (and many old timers here will agree) I hate winning with victory cities, I feel it is a cheap win, just like Magic 84 was in classic. (Where if the Axis collect 84 IPC in TT value after America’s turn, they win. Does not matter if you have a million British infantry in W. Europe, Axis win.)
However, I’m looking at the board and I have GOT to say here, its seems the only plausible way for the axis to win in Alphas is to win with Victory Cities. You get out spent every round by America alone out of the box! (80+ income for America vs 40 for Germany, 40 for Japan? No way Italy out produces China, England 1, England 2 and ANZAC.) OOB, there is no way the Axis can win short of grabbing enough victory cities before the allies out man them 3:1 everywhere. Alpha, its a little easier I think. Still, the only easy win I see is to get VCs otherwise, you’re fighting a losing battle with the axis.
I would LOVE to be proved wrong. But short of a difference in skill level of the players, I dont see it myself. And I just see the rules for future tournaments saying you can win with VCs, so it’s probably best to get in the habbit of defending them now. (Those were the rules for AARe tournaments around the web. I suspect it will hold true for AA40 tournaments.)
-
@Cmdr:
As for not playing to VC victory. Generally (and many old timers here will agree) I hate winning with victory cities, I feel it is a cheap win, just like Magic 84 was in classic. (Where if the Axis collect 84 IPC in TT value after America’s turn, they win. Does not matter if you have a million British infantry in W. Europe, Axis win.)
However, I’m looking at the board and I have GOT to say here, its seems the only plausible way for the axis to win in Alphas is to win with Victory Cities. You get out spent every round by America alone out of the box! (80+ income for America vs 40 for Germany, 40 for Japan? No way Italy out produces China, England 1, England 2 and ANZAC.) OOB, there is no way the Axis can win short of grabbing enough victory cities before the allies out man them 3:1 everywhere. Alpha, its a little easier I think. Still, the only easy win I see is to get VCs otherwise, you’re fighting a losing battle with the axis.
I would LOVE to be proved wrong. But short of a difference in skill level of the players, I dont see it myself. And I just see the rules for future tournaments saying you can win with VCs, so it’s probably best to get in the habbit of defending them now. (Those were the rules for AARe tournaments around the web. I suspect it will hold true for AA40 tournaments.)
You are absolutly correct with your assesment here. It has been a real challenge for the axis player to win in our non VC games. But I do not see us ever competing in tournaments. I guess if I do sometime then I will have to learn some new skills.
-
Is that why there are victory cities?
-
There are different schools of how to play Japan.
I go with an india first strat and it just so happens china is along the way. some people like AZNAC. Others are money focused. Sometimes I kill russians for fun because taking their land on my side of the board adds up to +5 a round at least.
Just depends. I don’t know how I win games with Japan. Everytime I play allies winning is so easy.
-
@Cow:
There are different schools of how to play Japan.
I go with an india first strat and it just so happens china is along the way. some people like AZNAC. Others are money focused. Sometimes I kill russians for fun because taking their land on my side of the board adds up to +5 a round at least.
Just depends. I don’t know how I win games with Japan. Everytime I play allies winning is so easy.
The money islands of the DEI are along the way also and Japan must take them to maintain their income level. If the axis do not play a perfect game the allied income will overwhelm them.
-
I think I disagree that Japan MUST take DEI. They are along the way, but there is no reason Japan cannot go directly to NSW and pound ANZAC hard without taking DEI first. You can always hit DEI from Philippines and NSW after you dismember ANZAC. (I of course assume you hit Philippines from Japan the same round you crush Australia because it has a Naval Base for you to stage from and because America’s in the war then anyway.)
-
I agree with you that there are other considerations besides the money islands. If Japan is not being aggressively built against, they can get the money islands when they are done with their primary goal.
Personally, I think Japan has two choices, like Germany does. Japan can focus on India first or Australia first, while Germany chooses London first or Moscow first. It may be that one way proves easier than another. However, I hope that there is more then one way to win. This would keep the game exciting.
I think the money islands help an Asia campaign since you have to build resources for the grind. If America is not challenging your navy, then you won’t need as much money to mop up islands for the win. It all depends on how America builds. If Japan gets all the attention, I’m ok winning with the Germans.
Its just naturally easier for Japan as they need 2 fewer victory cities then Germany and Italy does.
-
@Cmdr:
I think I disagree that Japan MUST take DEI. They are along the way, but there is no reason Japan cannot go directly to NSW and pound ANZAC hard without taking DEI first. You can always hit DEI from Philippines and NSW after you dismember ANZAC. (I of course assume you hit Philippines from Japan the same round you crush Australia because it has a Naval Base for you to stage from and because America’s in the war then anyway.)
I consider the money islands very important for Japan because the U.S. will be coming. If the U.S. does not challenge Japan then they will run wild in the Pacific and aquire an income even larger than the U.S.
-
I believe I have two mindsets.
1) If you know your opponent, and know he likes to have America fight against Germany, then go East!
2) If you dont know your opponent, or know he will come after Japan, sack Australia (it has no ability to build against you.)
Then there is my thought on the matter: Sack America, make it so they cannot wage war against you in the Pacific, have Germany sack their other side so they have nothing in the Atlantic (shouldnt be hard, they only have a destroyer) and then use your fleet to stop them from building a fleet and hammer Australia.
-
When we concluded this game today the allies surrendered after six rounds. The U.S. did not threaten Japan and you can see the results in this photo. Japan’s total income at the end was 71 IPCs.
-
your board is very shiny
-
your board is very shiny
I guess you are refering to my board. It is covered with a plexiglass sheet. Protects the game board and keeps it in place.
-
your board is very shiny
I guess you are refering to my board. It is covered with a plexiglass sheet. Protects the game board and keeps it in place.
Keeps coffee and beer stains off I guess, huh?
Suggested Topics
