• @Cmdr:

    Can America virtually ignore the Pacific without letting Japan win with Victory Cities?

    If I remember correctly, Japan needs 6 of 8.  The US has 3 of those (San Francisco, Manila, and Honolulu), so theoretically they could hold their own and if UK Pacific turtled in Calcutta Japan couldn’t take it easily.  But if Japan is allowed to take everything else its own economy would become a lot greater, making it harder to stop them in future turns.  Also, Manila is hard for the US to defend adequately, and the US couldn’t stop Japan from taking Honolulu either if they didn’t invest some IPCs into a Pacific fleet.

    I think the point of Japan’s victory condition is to force the US to worry about Japan, rather than being able to completely ignore it like in previous A&A games.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Oh, I agree the whole point of VCs are to make sure the Allies stay “honest” and attack all Axis powers throughout the game. I guess the idea of everyone ignoring Japan and pummelling Germany was not appealing.

    Anyway, holding Manila (Philippines) is virtually impossible regardless what you put in the water.  And I suppose holding NSW is also pretty impossible as well as Hong Kong.  So America is going to have to hold Hawaii or the game is lost. (Likewise England holding Calcutta/India.)  That stops the Japanese at 5 VCs, but how hard is it to hold Hawaii?  How much could you invest in the Atlantic without losing Hawaii?


  • Did you want to hold Hawaii, with infantry or with air units. (This is for a Europe centered U.S. that only seeks to delay Japan)

    If you have a secure fleet at Hawaii, and you use 4 transports that permit you to send two to Hawaii and two back to W. US. then in theory, you could get by with as few as 4 infantry a turn dropped off in Hawaii for a total cost of 12 IPCs a turn. Plus a start up cost of 14 IPCs for the 2 transports, and the whole starting fleet based at Hawaii for security. After 4 turns, you could have 18 land units plus starting air units to hold Hawaii and by the critical turn 7, you would see 30 land units in Hawaii. This means Japan would need a single wave transport fleet of 12-13 transports plus its 3 starting carriers pre-positioned at Hawaii to permit the 6 air units to assist.

    If you opted to use 2 fighters a turn, and fly them directly to Hawaii, you would spend 20 IPCs a turn, and be able to use starting assets else where. However, this means that by turn 7, you would only have 4 land units (assumes 1 landing turn 1) and 14-18 air units (depending on if starting units or anzac air joined you). This would only require a Japanese transport fleet of between 8-9 ships.

    Personally, the first approach has the best chance of slowing Japan’s conquest of Hawaii with a minimal effort on the U.S.'s part.

    However, it is highly likely that Japan would simply focus on Australia and India for the win and thus the above pacifist pacific plan is unlikely to result in a win. I do not see the U.S. capturing Berlin prior to turn 7, but it is conceivable that Japan could have 6 cities by then.

    (for my next pacific first camaign)
    The allied approach I intend to play test next, will be a US fleet of 3 transports and the rest navy. I would propose a fleet of 4 carriers, with destroyers and maybe a few subs as the primary hit takers, this permits anzac to land its air with your starting air. Your primary goal would then be an economic attack on Japan’s islands and convoy zones. With 6 land units, you can take a few losses, but you will likely need to use air units as casualties to maintain land conquering ability. Air units are the fastest to redeploy. Once the fleet is assembled and deployed, I envision a resupply effort of 1 fighter per turn at a cost of 10IPCS maintenance, so that if the US grabs one island a turn, it can lose 1 forward deployed fighter instead of its non-replaceable land units. With the new air unit moving first to Hawaii, then Australia, then the fleet. If you use anzac transports as the disposable transport for a multiple island per turn campaign, then staging anzac fighters on US carriers, will give you the “teeth” you need to take contested islands. To help the Yanks, I would maybe consider a 2 tank,6 mech build with Russia turn 1 and a turn 2 DOW so that Russia could assist China to maintain pressure on Japan’s land campaign. I do believe that Russia can spare 1 production, its 4 starting 2 movers and its 3 air units for this effort, while still holding Germany as they are likely to spend turns 1-3 against London. This creates a Moscow Far East rapid deploy expeditionary force of 12 land units, with 3 supporting air units for a total strike force of 15 pieces that would yield 4 hits per turn offensively and at an effective range of two spaces,  and 7 hits per turn defensively if used to guard Chinese deployments. I would replace Russia’s commitment with 16 of the 18 Far east infantry that would fall back to Moscow for the German drive on Moscow. 2 would remain east to establish road blocks for a mechanized Japanese push.

    A big draw back, is that Hawaii will be left vulnerable, and sudden Japanese navy builds could drive back the U.S. expeditionary force. It may be prudent to also build 1-2 subs a turn but that drives the Pacific commitment to 3 rounds of fleet building and then a maintenance cost of 16-22 IPCs a turn, leaving less effort for a mid game turn around on Europe.

    This still looks bleak, which is why I developed Operation: Open House. (UK abandoning London as bait turn1, which permits a US turn2 DOW and a contained Italy)


  • James and Jennifer,

    After reading some of your posts, I’m very interested to see what USA (allies in general) would do after a coordinated G3/4 Sealion and a J3 Hawaii, DEI, FIC strategy.  Next time we play I have a feeling the Allies in our group are in for a rough game.

    Question: Does Germany attacking Scotland (staging for Sealion) bring USA into the war?


  • Germany taking Scotland does not bring the US into the war.  Only taking London will do that for Sea Lion.


  • Going for HAwaii and Sealion is kind of poker game. I mean, can work but if not, defeat is near thats why i dont like those kind of attack. All in assault againts the hot spots.


  • :mrgreen:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    To my knowledge, taking London doesn’t bring America into the war early, of course, I dont have the rule book memorized either.

    Probably moot, earliest you can take London is G3 and America can declare in R3 anyway.


  • @Cmdr:

    To my knowledge, taking London doesn’t bring America into the war early, of course, I dont have the rule book memorized either.

    Probably moot, earliest you can take London is G3 and America can declare in R3 anyway.

    Per ALPHA rules, a take over of London (or an attack on any territory in north america) allows the US to declare war at it’s earliest convenience.  Per OOB rules, the US cannot declare war until end of turn US3 unless an axis power declares war on the US first.


  • @kcdzim:

    @Cmdr:

    To my knowledge, taking London doesn’t bring America into the war early, of course, I dont have the rule book memorized either.

    Probably moot, earliest you can take London is G3 and America can declare in R3 anyway.

    Per OOB rules, a take over of London (or an attack on any territory in north america) allows the US to declare war at it’s earliest convenience.  Per OOB rules, the US cannot declare war until end of turn US3 unless an axis power declares war on the US first.

    I think you mean “Per Alpha rules” instead of “Per OOB rules”….London or North America in Alpha permits an early DOW by the US. Scotland does not if I understand the rules properly.


  • @JamesAleman:

    @kcdzim:

    @Cmdr:

    To my knowledge, taking London doesn’t bring America into the war early, of course, I dont have the rule book memorized either.

    Probably moot, earliest you can take London is G3 and America can declare in R3 anyway.

    Per OOB rules, a take over of London (or an attack on any territory in north america) allows the US to declare war at it’s earliest convenience.  Per OOB rules, the US cannot declare war until end of turn US3 unless an axis power declares war on the US first.

    I think you mean “Per Alpha rules” instead of “Per OOB rules”….London or North America in Alpha permits an early DOW by the US. Scotland does not if I understand the rules properly.

    Yes, sorry, fixed, tired.

    An attack on the UK (territory) or Scotland won’t affect US DOWs, nor a takeover of Scotland.  Only a complete sacking of London will set off the US.  Or a violation of the Monroe Doctrine (any attack on north american territories, successful or no).


  • @kcdzim:

    @JamesAleman:

    @kcdzim:

    @Cmdr:

    To my knowledge, taking London doesn’t bring America into the war early, of course, I dont have the rule book memorized either.

    Probably moot, earliest you can take London is G3 and America can declare in R3 anyway.

    Per OOB rules, a take over of London (or an attack on any territory in north america) allows the US to declare war at it’s earliest convenience.  Per OOB rules, the US cannot declare war until end of turn US3 unless an axis power declares war on the US first.

    I think you mean “Per Alpha rules” instead of “Per OOB rules”….London or North America in Alpha permits an early DOW by the US. Scotland does not if I understand the rules properly.

    Yes, sorry, fixed, tired.

    An attack on the UK (territory) or Scotland won’t affect US DOWs, nor a takeover of Scotland.  Only a complete sacking of London will set off the US.  Or a violation of the Monroe Doctrine (any attack on north american territories, successful or no).

    Speaking of the Monroe doctrine, it would make sense to include South America here too but I doubt it would affect the game.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    It might, if I played OOB, because I like to take Brazil for Italy or Germany.


  • @Cmdr:

    Can America virtually ignore the Pacific without letting Japan win with Victory Cities?

    The last game I played was like this.  USA built mostly in the alantic to re capture UK after sealion,  after a litlle Italy and Germany screwaround USA was then too weak to come back japan took India and Hawaii enforce to seal the deal
    My

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, the American ships in SZ 101 are pretty close to SZ 26 and SZ 10.

    I was hoping an American build up in SZ 101 might dissuade a Sea Lion and press Germany into a Barbarossa.  Then, on round 3, when it’s too late really, move the ships down and be in range of Hawaii on US 4.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 8
  • 4
  • 8
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 21
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts