"Alternate" Japan Naval Strats

[Guest]

There is one statement in those old threads that is unsupported, and rather outlandish standing by itself.  But it comes from one of our mods, so I am re-posting it…

“If japan doesn’t pearl I, as America, will take France on turn 3 and keep it.” by dezrtfish

What difference does the Pacific fleet make in France?  It only adds 1 BB, 1 fig and 1 tranny to the mix.  Counter that with additional IPC loses by UK and USSR from Japan focusing on those two targets instead, and it should more than counter the minimal US gain.

Also, I notice that folks call a second German strike on Allied navy a poor decision.  I am sorry, but I have found that, if it means stopping Allied land forces from landing in Europe, then ANY cost of airforce is worth the risk.  Lose a couple of 4’s on defense for destroying trannies and stopping 2 INF per round from landing in Europe.  Sounds like a GOOD trade to me.  The longer you can keep US and UK from landing forces, the longer Germany lives, and the longer Japan has to do its thing.  And US moving the PAC fleet to Paris in 3 rounds… well that is 3 rounds of Japan unrestricted.  Japan will hold SFE, Yakut, China, Sinkiang, India, Australia, NZ at a MINIMUM and most likely one of Kaz/Novo/Evenk, plus Persia or Syria, and probably grabbed Hawaii while they were at it; this time without much resistance (1 INF).

[221B Baker Street]

I notice that folks call a second German strike on Allied navy a poor decision.  I am sorry, but I have found that, if it means stopping Allied land forces from landing in Europe, then ANY cost of airforce is worth the risk.

I generally consider a second strike on the UK navy bad because of the loss of the fighters.  Germany needs to keep the fighters for the following reasons:

1. Most importantly,the fighters add teeth to the Axis defense.  Their value is clearly shown when the Allies strafe E. Europe.  Without these fighters, the Allies will have an easier time in the long run in invading Germany.

2. The fighters enable Germany to trade Ukraine with Russia, otherwise Germany cannot retake this without applying more ground forces (which will be lost on the next turn) than necessary.  This 3 ipc gain a turn adds up.

3. In the event of the German Sweden maneuver they assist on a German strafe (or two) of the Allies in Norway.  Or they can do this anyway if Norway is lightly held, perhaps by the Russian tanks.  It might be worth a fighter to take out two or three Russian tanks.

4. The fighters are useful in Africa to prolong this German occupation.

5. The fighters keep the Allies honest with their transports.  If Germany has fighters, you don’t see any lone transports floating around.

6. The fighters add firepower if/when Germany decides on a kamikazee attack (take it or die trying) on Karelia (or Moscow).  Most often this is either in combination with the Japanese assualt or a desperation move where the German player realizes the Axis are falling behind and only lucky dice can save the game.

Taking out the navy on G2 only slows down the Allies 2 turns (actually less because they still have their infantry purchase).  The above reasons will gain Germany more than this IMO.

[Guest]

So you recommend only a single initial tear at Allied shipping?

If so, do you go for the US tranny also, or just the UK surface fleet (excluding India tranny, which I leave to Japan to handle)?

And then you pool those figs for use for trading a 3 IPC territory that both Germany AND Russia will get paid for, and allow US and UK to start landing forces in Turn 3?

I just don;t see it.  If, as everyone here seems to say, the death knell of the Axis is Allied reinforcements in karelia (and then in Russia), then why would you ever do anything that would allow those reinforcements to land FASTER?

[221B Baker Street]

If, as everyone here seems to say, the death knell of the Axis is Allied reinforcements in karelia (and then in Russia), then why would you ever do anything that would allow those reinforcements to land FASTER?

Well I consider it more important for Germany to be able to keep the bulk of the Allies forces in Karelia, rather than in Moscow.  Without the fighters, the Allies will be able to put more in Moscow (usually after a Germany kamikazee assault on Karelia at the critical point) which will make it harder for Japan to take Moscow.

[Guest]

I posted my reply as a new thread… a no-bid Axis victory.  It seemed to fit more for a new thread (since it was German AF usage) rather than the existing thread of Japan sending their fleet into the Atlantic.

[trihero]

I’m not sure I understand your strategy. Why wouldn’t the US simply take the canal back? How then could you sail through it?

[Guest]

@trihero:

I’m not sure I understand your strategy. Why wouldn’t the US simply take the canal back? How then could you sail through it?

The US would have to take it back on the same round I took it in order to prevent me from sailing through.  And in most cases, the US does not have multiple tanks in Western US that could sweep down through Mexico to re-take Panama from 2 INF.  Thus Japan could use the canal, grab their INF from the other side, and proceed to raid in the Atlantic.

[trihero]

Whoops I’m sorry, I was looking at the revised map not the old one. The panama canal is directly connected to the Eastern US in revised so it’s extremely easy to deflate this strategy in revised.

[Guest]

@trihero:

Whoops I’m sorry, I was looking at the revised map not the old one. The panama canal is directly connected to the Eastern US in revised so it’s extremely easy to deflate this strategy in revised.

Damn you are right!  Now if THAT is not a goofy map change!  LOL  Panama connected to Eastern US…  That is as much of a screw up as Western Canada bordering the Atlantic Ocean in Classic.

[limitedwhole]

Any strategy with begins with consolodate is inferior as it wastes an entire turn.

[aaFiendish]

You have to reply with a little more substance than that limited. I think that ncswitch has shown a plausible alternate strategy. What you are I think missing is that the japan navy is not “missing” anything. They are optimizing their mainland landing by consolidating in the japan seas. They don’t even need to consolidate as it were, they could always send a BB and transports up to SFE as well.

[Guest]

Also, these alternate strategies are in direct response to specific opening moves by other nations and were posted as a way to “try something new” that also had the unique component of being so crazy as to be viable :-)