much latter, Hawaii, Australia, India…then things like that
No more Pearl Harbours?
-
I wasn’t very clear on that last post, thats what happens when you write these at work.
I was trying to say that there really isn’t anything else to do with the Japanese Pacific fleet except Pearl Harbor, unless you want to do the Brazil thing. The three IPC’s from Brazil are not important, what is important is that the most powerful fleet in the atlantic now belongs to the axis and you can put a stop to the US/UK tranports for a few turns.
You are right, the US can block you with their fleet, but if they do that you can pretty much just go back to your normal game. All sorts of territories are in range from Hawaii.
-
I think it is very very usefull to destroy the American pacific fleet!
The Pearl Harbor attack (this should be obvious to all players) should be conducted, always, without exception.
If this U.S. fleet is not removed, it will be used against you in the Pacific (non-optimal), or it can be driven through the Panama Canal to assist the U.S. Atlantic invasion front (optimal). Any anticipation of anything less than the optimal response movement from the U.S. player is generally considered as weak play….
Because of this, you must always use enough forces to take out this sea zone area decisively.
In basic tactical play…
Use all available fleet, except for the transports (which stay behind to offload troops onto the Asian mainland) to conduct this attack, combined with 2 fighters (to be landed on the carrier), and the bomber (just to make sure).
The object of this attack movement is to remove all 3 U.S. fleet pieces in Hawaii on the first round of combat, if possible. Please keep in mind that the U.S. player has the option of “retreating a submarine” instead of “declaring it to be a loss” after the first round of battle, which can potentially create more havoc for any Japanese player on any counterattack response, or more problems for the Germans later on if that sub is used somehow in their Atlantic initiative (via the Panama Canal, of course).
The Japanese can always remove their submarine as their first declared loss as the best 1st option when declaring their first set of casualties in this battle. But since it is possible that there will be more than one loss in this battle, I’ve seen two styles of loss removal for any “second unit loss declaritive”, and the effects of which are summarized as follows:
This potential “second unit loss”, if it happens, can be defined to be the following Japanese units:
-
Bomber - this is a common 2nd loss declaritive, as it assumes that the massive battleship fleet presence should be enough to deter a U.S. fleet buildup or counterattack on the Japanese fleet. This has the effect optimizing the sea based defense to its maximum capabilty, after both the fighters have landed on the carrier.
-
Battleship - this is also a common 2nd loss declaritive, as it goads the U.S. into committing their resources to counterattacking the Japanese fleet, instead of using their “potential counterattack” resources against the Germans after travelling through the Panama canal. This has the effect of saving the bomber for future attacks on the Asian mainland, at some expense of your sea fleet’s eventual defensive capability.
-
Fighter - this less popular 2nd loss declaritive assumes that the carrier will be travelling with the rest of the fleet until it gets back into flight range of other fighters. This has the effect of saving the bomber for future attacks on the Asian mainland, at very minor expense of your sea fleet’s present defensive capability, and with increased expense to your eventual Asian mainland total offensive capability (that extra fighter could potentially be used in land based offense and defense).
This Japanese attack force on Pearl Harbor should consist of the following:
1 battleship (Japan)
1 submarine
2 fighters (one from Japan, one from the carrier)
1 bomberAfter combat has been completed, the fighters will be moved to the carrier which will be occupying the Solomon Islands sea zone. It is also crucial that the battleship is to be taken off as a loss in this battle, if necessary. This is done in the stead of the bomber or the fighters, because of these units are a necessary component of the strategical approach.
Non-combat movements at sea, following the Pearl Harbor strike:
Load both transports (4 infantry) and send them to the Solomon Islands sea zone, unloading the infantry there.
Move the carrier to the Solomon Islands sea zone.
Move the other battleship to the Solomon Islands sea zone
Land the bomber in the Solomon Islands.All and all, after the Pearl Harbor attack, this is what you should have in the Solomon Islands and it’s associative sea zone:
4 infantry
2 transports
1 battleship
1 carrier
2 fighters (on the carrier)
1 bomber (on Solomon Island) -
-
I’m not so sure that after 5 rounds the Jap fleet would be all that much stronger then the allied fleet. They have the advantage of seeing it coming for a long time, then using transports to block the final attack by a round perhaps.
I hear ya on using the Jap fleet right away, by not doing pearl the BBs and 3 ftrs really don’t do a thing unless you attack the Soviet FE with a BB.
I see your point also about tying up allied resources. I really try to concentrate on that in my game. Big battles rarely occur, it’s more posturing and pressure points.
An empty CV, and 2 BBs off Japan doesn’t scare the allies much does it? It should. Next round it’s off FIC with 4 transports loadable (always drop loaded units off when you can) with 6 air units in position to invaded Africa. (Japan always must have 4-5 transports between FIC and Japan until R5ish when IC’s come into play). Do the allies just ignore this? They’ll be looking at what can get into Africa and looking at the territories from Persia to Italian E. Africa thinking “Anything along those 4 territories is toast”.
What did Japan sacrafice, nothing. Those infantry at FIC are 2 rounds away from Novosibirsk just like they would be in Manchuria. Next round you could move back to Japan and pick up/unload into Manchuria OR go HUGE into Africa or go MEDIUM into Africa, the latter two requiring the building of a an IC to replace the 2-4 transports being tied up in Africa.
That threat should play out every other round or have a 1/2 threat by an even split of the navy capital ships.
Same threat but you get more transport defense. The real goal of the Jap navy is to get guys into Asia, any more is bonus.
BB
-
I wonder, whether it’s really a good idea for Japan to go after Pearl Harbour.
Yes.
What can the American fleet do?
Famous Last Words.
Assuming you avoid pearl harbor entirely, this leaves a fleet of carrier, 2 fighters, a battleship, a transport and a submarine to take an infantry from Hawaii and Midway (assuming the Japanese transports stayed on the Asian coast) or two guys from the West Coast to Alaska. On Turn Two, the americans land in the Soviet Far East and begin ferrying troops into Russia, prolonging the Japanese rollback of Russian territory for a good two to three turns.
Or, if the Japanese Fleet retreats back to the Sea of Japan to prevent the above scenario, Macarthur’s Island Hopping Campaign can begin immediately. Possibly threatening the takeover of the Philipenes by turn three.
The weakness in not attacking the American Fleet while it’s in two seperate chunks cannot be overstated. It is easier to handle while not unified and reinforced. Not only that, but if the entire US Navy retreats into the Atlantic, then it places an even greater burden on Germany, who does not need the sort of aggravation that can be caused by an extra USA fighter and battleship in Africa/Western Europe on turn three.
I can see why the Allies win 100% of BigBlocky’s games. The Axis simply isn’t aggressive enough. In order for the Axis to win consistently (as it has in my games, despite all odds) the Axis MUST turn every game into a crap shoot, and then (this is the tricky part) hope that superior die rolling will win the day for them. If they don’t play the dice game and go for a purely statistical victory… well, the allies have 90 IPC’s and the Axis has 57 IPC’s, QED.
The successful Axis turns everything into a lucky gamble. In our group, Fred and I have always been able to use the audacious risky nature of our tactics and psychological warfare (trash-talking) to intimidate the allies into overly conservative play. If we can delay them just ONE turn with our bad mouthing, then we can use other means to delay their attacks even more, allowing the Axis to secure an economic victory.
It also helps that our regular opponents haven’t quite got the message that they are part of an alliance. They understand it in theory, but then go on to carry out some selfish plan that the Axis is able to exploit for even further delays.
-
Maybe you guys should rotate players more often…? I think this is step #1 if you find games are stagnating w/ either the Allies OR the Axis are winning 90+% of the time. If that doesn’t help, more tweaks are in order, but playing the same people in the same positions every time the game will stagnate REAL quickly. One side will find a way to win vs. the other side every time. The other side will always lose until they stumble on a way to counter the 1st side’s moves. Then that side will always win; and so on.
Ozone27
-
Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then?
I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. I would not use a ftr to knock out an infantry in S. Africa to gain 1 turn, I’d move up an infantry and attack next round, there is little risk benefit in that.
The reason the axis only wins 90% of the time is we don’t use bids and the games is slanted against the allies. I’ll take the allies against you any day and we’ll see where your luck gets you :-) Of course if the allies are not co-operating it makes it easier, don’t count on that and luck to win a game however.
As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.
If you move it up to Wake island more than likely you will face from Japan 5 ftrs, 1 bomber, 2 BBs, a sub, carrier (30 offense) and up to 4 transports for fodder. On average the US would have a single piece after the first round and the Japs would still have transports for fodder. Moreover, the Brits need a hand to get going quick. I think that’s why most people don’t go after the Japs as the US.
BB
-
Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then? BB
That’s the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.
I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB
My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler’s path to regain the momentum.
As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.BB
That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.
If you move it up to Wake island BB
I don’t move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.
This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.
Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.
-
Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then? BB
That’s the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.
I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB
My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler’s path to regain the momentum.
As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.BB
That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.
If you move it up to Wake island BB
I don’t move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.
This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.
Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.
-
You should count on Japan building 2 transports on turn 1. It allows the maximum # of units/round into asia and if the US tries to play games in the Pafic it’s also the best move. The US moves the fleet to Alaska and it’s sunk without effort.
If the Jap player plays conservative on R1, counter-intuitive perhaps, then Manchuria is so stacked the russians have to retreat. You say as Japan you take India and china but lose Manchuria? By no losing manchuria you gain access to 4 IPC worth of territories from the russians.
Having the entire pacific fleet move into the atlantic to get 2 infantry and 1 battleship shot is not the best use of resources in my opinion. What if the only option to get units in is via norway, the BB never gets used. It’s a trade off but I can manage fine in the Atlantic without the Pacific fleet moving over so I don’t move it over.
The allies should never enter into a fair fight if by not fighting they lose little and if the next round the battle is slightly more in your favour. Time is usually on the side of the allies.
BB
-
In my games, Japan always holds back from attacking the US fleet. The fighters help the continental expansion, and Japan normally has everything east of Russia and Syria-Iraq. The US navy either moves to the atlantic, which lets the Japanese Midway, Pearl, and alaska unimpeded; or it builds up, spending precious IPs on the pacific, leaving Germany to use luftwaffe to kill british chances of building for D-Day and to take the russian capital, sence Japan widdled Russia down to 1 or 2 territories. So i think either way, Pearl is almost better avoided, especially since Japan can never rebuild navy it loses if it doesnt get money from the mainland
-
I do not attack Hawii as the attack only destroys units that japan can’t rebuild but the US can and it also gets the US’s attention because it wants to cou ter attack. If you dont attack a good US player will move there fleet to the atlantic and if they ever decide to go back to the pacific you have a navy with which you can defend. My J1 strategy uasally involves attacking (and taking) India, China and Sinking( a nice bit of IPCS :) ), this move would be impossabe if I had forces commited to the pacific.
-
If japan doesn’t pearl I, as America, will take France on turn 3 and keep it.
-
not if germany uses my
“Montains of Infantry” tm
approch, Germany only buys infantry and moves them towards russia and towards positions needing fortifing (such as france)
it always works agansit the computer :D (on Hard setting too! :D )
-
I for one, strongly believe in crushing the US Navy in the Pacific! Of course America has the money to rebuild but it is nice to have that one turn jump on America, especially since Japan does not start with too many IPCs
-
I always adhere to the El Jefe Directive…
this is “TOP SECRET”, …
so don’t tell anyone else, …
but this is it…
“It depends… .”
Do not divulge this…
under penalty of…
me licking the soles of your feet!
Suggested Topics
