In the latest printing, that last sentence reads, “Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.”
Attacking and Defending SZ6 (Surrounding Japan)
-
But 1 DD stops you from doing that.
-
There has to be a combat or an amphibious assault from that sea zone. The capital ships can remain outside the sea zone and move on the non combat if they didn’t start in the SZ, but that doesn’t work so well if there’s a big naval combat involved.
If the Allies control sea zone 6 and have capital ships present, you can force them to move or initiate combat by doing a build in sea zone 6 on Japan’s turn. Then the ships have to run or you have the option to use your kamikazes.
Marsh
-
Well problem is that after that i just non-combat my whole fleet in there. Ofcourse if your fleet is out of position.
And that would be a guaranteed 11 IPC loss due to convoys.
Kamikazes are useless again because your the attacker not me.While the loss of 11 IPCs for Japan is nasty, I have at times abandoned sea zone six to go and kill India and had it work out very well. Sea zone 6 is important, but losing control of it doesn’t necessarily end Japan’s game.
Marsh
-
@Marshmallow:
Well problem is that after that i just non-combat my whole fleet in there. Ofcourse if your fleet is out of position.
And that would be a guaranteed 11 IPC loss due to convoys.
Kamikazes are useless again because your the attacker not me.While the loss of 11 IPCs for Japan is nasty, I have at times abandoned sea zone six to go and kill India and had it work out very well. Sea zone 6 is important, but losing control of it doesn’t necessarily end Japan’s game.
Marsh
To me, its a simple money game. It may lose 11 IPC / round in Convoy - but how many IPC will it cost me to defend it? Much much more. Even three full turns of convoy is only 33 IPC.
I’m not defending SZ6 with 33 IPC of units against a determined US opponent. I’m probably not defending it for anything less than 70 IPC worth of invested units considering what the USN starts with in the Pacific. And really, to keep the US away I’ll probably need upwards of 100 IPC of value to deter the US from harassing SZ6 if it REALLY wants to convoy there.
I’ll happily project force in other places and accept the cost of doing business will be 11 IPC / turn of potential convoy fully knowing that when KIF concludes I can swing back to SZ6 or threaten it rather quickly.
I’ve found the USN is almost always better served to get into the action around the DEI than sit and convoy Japan for 11 IPC with much of its fleet.
And, if the USN just wants to send SS there, an IJN DD with a few FTR really requires more than just SS to take control of SZ6 and enforce an effective convoy for all 11 IPC.
-
To me, its a simple money game. It may lose 11 IPC / round in Convoy - but how many IPC will it cost me to defend it? Much much more. Even three full turns of convoy is only 33 IPC.
I’m not defending SZ6 with 33 IPC of units against a determined US opponent. I’m probably not defending it for anything less than 70 IPC worth of invested units considering what the USN starts with in the Pacific. And really, to keep the US away I’ll probably need upwards of 100 IPC of value to deter the US from harassing SZ6 if it REALLY wants to convoy there.
I’ll happily project force in other places and accept the cost of doing business will be 11 IPC / turn of potential convoy fully knowing that when KIF concludes I can swing back to SZ6 or threaten it rather quickly.
I’ve found the USN is almost always better served to get into the action around the DEI than sit and convoy Japan for 11 IPC with much of its fleet.
And, if the USN just wants to send SS there, an IJN DD with a few FTR really requires more than just SS to take control of SZ6 and enforce an effective convoy for all 11 IPC.
Exactly! The loss, while not a great one, does not cause Japan more grief than it can handle. Furthermore, if the Allies do sit in sea zone 6, Japan can consolidate its fleet and with a couple of builds engage in combat on its turns at its leisure as soon as the US stops spending to defend sea zone 6.
In short, if you can’t defend it give it up and make the other guy defend it instead! Defense is a whole separate problem from attack, and one that is seldom answered by the exact same force.
For example, Italy can be utterly screwed over by letting them have Egypt early in the game so that it has to spend all its income to defend Egypt while the UK threatens Egypt and has a much bigger global impact!
Marsh
-
There are much much better ways to screw over Italy than letting them have Egypt. Use UK air to prevent Italy from floating any ships, then send a bunch of subs to convoy away its income. Tried and true method of keeping Italy down to at most whatever income it cannibalized off of Germany on the eastern front.
-
The problem is that you can’t build your replacement navy on the Chinese coast north of FIC. If you can build some of it in India or Sydney, that could work. What is worse is when you don’t have an IC in FIC or really need it to crank out ground units. FIC can still be threatened by planes and a naval base can be built by the US on Korea, assuming they hold that, which they generally do if they’re controlling SZ6 at least in my games.
The move of buying a DD in SZ6 and forcing the ACs out or kamikazing them does weaken the US force in the area so you can take it back more easily. It’s an idea worth keeping in the back pocket. It’s particularly useful if the convoying force is mostly subs.
-
Losing SZ6 is extremely difficult to recover from. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it done successfully. It is not merely the 11 IPC lost to convoys, but the need to now defend Japan proper with land units to avoid losing the capital, as well as the loss of strategic leverage in the lack of ability to project threat from that SZ over the entire Asian coast and much of the Pacific.
IMO losing SZ6 is a game-breaker for Japan. If Germany is not having a fantastic game at that point, the Axis have lost.
-
I’ve never recovered from it either. But I feel it might be possible depending on how handicapped you are navally compared to the US. If US is building its SZ6 force faster than the IJN is strengthening, then the game is virtually lost.
My last game I came the closest. I had 11 subs off the Carolines, blocking reinforcement via Hawaii and an increasing number of strat bombers to attack forces moving in. But the game was lost in USSR.
-
Losing SZ6 is extremely difficult to recover from. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it done successfully. It is not merely the 11 IPC lost to convoys, but the need to now defend Japan proper with land units to avoid losing the capital, as well as the loss of strategic leverage in the lack of ability to project threat from that SZ over the entire Asian coast and much of the Pacific.
IMO losing SZ6 is a game-breaker for Japan. If Germany is not having a fantastic game at that point, the Axis have lost.
My position with Japan is always the same: If the US is spending in the Pacific, the Axis are still winning.
Russia and the UK cannot stop a well played Germany and Italy for the Europe win without participation by the US.
If the US is fighting to keep a convoy on SZ6 and Japan has consolidated its power in Asia, the US is likely committed to KJF at this point and if so, that leaves Europe open for the Axis VC win.
Rarely, if ever, do I expect to win with Japan. However, a hyper aggressive Japan forces the US to economically invest in the Pacific. This is a win for the Axis 9 times out of 10. Tokyo is a hard nut to crack for the US. Accepting the Convoy in SZ6 is just part of the “trap” to encourage the US to continue to invest in it’s “gains” in the Pacific.
Put simply, SZ6 and therefore Tokyo is the cheese in the Axis mousetrap for the US.
-
Losing SZ6 is extremely difficult to recover from. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it done successfully.
I disagree 100%. I have NEVER had a problem reclaiming sea zone six from the Allies if I wanted to. It’s just a matter of proper planning and execution.
Marsh
-
I think of retaking SZ6 sort of like recapturing Moscow. A real pain but not a game ender if a counter attack is included in your overall strategy.
-
Agreed. If I have preserved my fleet properly and I vacate sea zone 6 to go kill India, then I will get sea zone 6 back because A) I can take my time and consolidate my fleet before attempting recapture, B) a US invasion of Japan is impractical for the US and easily defeated with one build in Japan proper before I vacate the sea zone and another after I vacate the sea zone, and C) Germany has a free hand in dealing with Russia while the US is dumping all its income trying to hold onto sea zone 6.
The US can slow me down in gathering my fleet for a bit, but if I can build at factories outside Japan the US cannot stop me from retaking sea zone six without completely abandoning Europe. Or, I can ignore sea zone 6 and threaten ANZAC after killing India – 15 IPCs from ANZAC is worth more than 11 from sea zone 6.
The Allies can’t win just by holding sea zone 6 – the Allies also have to actively contest the East Indies, and they can’t do that if India is dead and the US is trying to hold sea zone 6 against me. If I have killed India and hold the East Indies, the Allies are in a bad way in the Pacific because my income is still equal to the US while they are convoying those 11 IPCs, and furthermore the Allied fleet is pinned in sea zone 6 if they try to defend it to keep my income down.
ANZAC is now in danger, and enough pressure there will force the US to stop defending sea zone 6 to avoid losing the game. ANZAC by itself can either contest the East Indies or keep itself alive for an extra couple of turns while the US comes to take the pressure off. If the US doesn’t come to take the pressure off, ANZAC will fall.
I grant you that I just can’t run back into sea zone 6 the first turn the Allies hold it, and probably not the first three or four. Yeah, the lost income sucks, but I can handle it .
Marsh
-
Interesting comments.
How do you stop the US from building an industrial complex on Korea and therefore rolling back Japan on land? Also, how would you stop the US Navy from reinforcing across the Pacific?
-
How do you stop the US from building an industrial complex on Korea and therefore rolling back Japan on land? Also, how would you stop the US Navy from reinforcing across the Pacific?
A US MIC on Korea can produce three units. Japan should have at least three MICs on the mainland (counting India and MICs that were used to finalize the India kill) can produce nine units. That means that Japan can build more units than the US can, which means that the US “rolling back Japan on land” goes considerably slower than the US would like unless they want to risk a rapid recapture of sea zone 6. Additional US forces must come from the mainland US, and if the US is doing that they are again not working hard enough on Europe.
Now, you might say that the US can capture those Japanese ICs on the mainland, but I submit that the the US cannot do that without weakening its defense of sea zone six because Japan should still have a vastly superior air force that can defend those factories while they slow the “rollback” and build up Japan’s fleet for recapturing sea zone 6 or killing ANZAC.
Marsh
-
Interesting comments.
How do you stop the US from building an industrial complex on Korea and therefore rolling back Japan on land? Also, how would you stop the US Navy from reinforcing across the Pacific?
As I said earlier, if the US is spending in the Pacific to maintain control of SZ6 and/or producing through Korea to keep control of it - the Allies have taken the bait, are caught in a mousetrap and Europe is in dire straights.
Assuming Japan built minors in Coastal Asia - Japan has twice the production capacity the US does once it secures India; and that includes the US building a Korean Minor easily SBR’d by Japan.
The US faces a losing battle if incomes are generally equal and Japan can simply put more units on the board.
Additionally, SZ6 is a terrible position for the USN if Japan decides to ignore it and shoot for ANZAC for the win.
In my humble opinion, the USN needs to reclaim Flip as early as possible and have ANZAC reinforce it. This forces Japan to have to redirect to Flip and buys the Allies a few turns before Japan threatens ANZAC or Hawaii.
The US can achieve this with a minimal investment while investing heavily in the Atlantic in the early rounds. The real naval conflicts with Japan won’t arrive for a handful of turns after Calcutta falls anyways - and even longer if you simply reclaim Flip and scuttle back to Queensland while Japan is focuses on India.
-
@Marshmallow:
How do you stop the US from building an industrial complex on Korea and therefore rolling back Japan on land? Also, how would you stop the US Navy from reinforcing across the Pacific?
A US MIC on Korea can produce three units. Japan should have at least three MICs on the mainland (counting India and MICs that were used to finalize the India kill) can produce nine units. That means that Japan can build more units than the US can, which means that the US “rolling back Japan on land” goes considerably slower than the US would like unless they want to risk a rapid recapture of sea zone 6. Additional US forces must come from the mainland US, and if the US is doing that they are again not working hard enough on Europe.
Now, you might say that the US can capture those Japanese ICs on the mainland, but I submit that the the US cannot do that without weakening its defense of sea zone six because Japan should still have a vastly superior air force that can defend those factories while they slow the “rollback” and build up Japan’s fleet for recapturing sea zone 6 or killing ANZAC.
Marsh
Suffice to say, that I’ve never seen this strategy work in practice. USN can also bring in reinforcements and planes can just fly in. There is also China becoming active in the north. Should buy a certain amount of time before Japanese Asian production superiority can bite.
But I’ve gotten your answer, so thanks.
-
Yeah, Marsh’s math doesn’t add up. We’re not just talking 11 IPC of convoy damage per turn, but another large chunk of IPC to defend Japan proper - at a crucial turning point in the game, no less. Holding India at that point doesn’t bring Japan even close to US production, and ANZAC and Chinese production plus any support the Russians can offer on that front have to be taken into account as well. The time it takes to recover even in ideal situations is plenty of time for the US to order up a boatload of loaded transports and get them to amphib assault Japan, plus they’ll have the bombard support and no doubt a huge number of planes (as they’d be needed to hold SZ6 in the first place). Japan proper needs to be stacked with well over 20 units to defend that, and if it is, then there’s no building forces to reclaim SZ6 because there’s no money for it. That’s not to mention that if the US can hold SZ6 then it can take Philippines as well.
India is NOT worth it when you can simply outbuild them on land and advance at your leisure while holding SZ6 strong.
-
Yeah, Marsh’s math doesn’t add up. We’re not just talking 11 IPC of convoy damage per turn, but another large chunk of IPC to defend Japan proper - at a crucial turning point in the game, no less. Holding India at that point doesn’t bring Japan even close to US production, and ANZAC and Chinese production plus any support the Russians can offer on that front have to be taken into account as well. The time it takes to recover even in ideal situations is plenty of time for the US to order up a boatload of loaded transports and get them to amphib assault Japan, plus they’ll have the bombard support and no doubt a huge number of planes (as they’d be needed to hold SZ6 in the first place). Japan proper needs to be stacked with well over 20 units to defend that, and if it is, then there’s no building forces to reclaim SZ6 because there’s no money for it. That’s not to mention that if the US can hold SZ6 then it can take Philippines as well.
India is NOT worth it when you can simply outbuild them on land and advance at your leisure while holding SZ6 strong.
When playing the Axis, I welcome all attempts by the US player to attempt the invasion of Japan. Certain Axis victory, it means.
Marsh
-
I think y’all are underestimating the amount of US material required to hold SZ6. It’s an insane amount if you aren’t going to use blockers, and using blockers bleeds you in Sub for DD trades every turn. Any planes Japan builds on Japan can attack the SZ as well as their whole fleet and airforce in China. The most productive part is the threat to advance to SZ6: that forces the IJA to stay in range to counter, preventing it from finishing off China/India without a one-time use airbase.
The US will basically never have threat of actually taking Japan: mass transports are incredibly telegraphed and mean no naval reinforcements will be coming. To actually get it done you need to bomb Japan into the ground while doing so, and there’s no way Germany won’t have the game in the bag by then. Japan can even just gun for Egypt if need be with all the US resources going into the capture of the island.
Suggested Topics
