1. Yes, tacs can only bomb airfields and naval bases.
2. Perhaps the CV as a landing site has already had its capacity used up by other moves you have made?
Stall tactic
-
-
US, USSR, China, ANZAC and France have no initiative in the game… always have to react.
Only UK has initiative. Taranto, Tobruk and TMG (The Mahatma Gambit)
This is reflective of the true WWII situation.
So, only stall tactic in Pacific, against monster Japanese Navy and Airforce, is the UK India Navy.
THREATEN to Sacrifice the BB or DD , to delay the Japanese Momentum for a turn. The BB costing 20 IPC, will delay Japan getting 25+ IPC . It can also help in Phillippines etc
Allies still come up positive with this play.
Russian player and Moscow will thank you for this… as if Japan goes J2, then usually Moscow can be held against a G6/G7/G8 attack
If no J2, then UK BB in Tokyo water, means a botched J3, unless Japanese player sees this and plays very accurately and carefully.
This is not a cheat tactic, as was mentioned before.
This is the only meaningful Allied threat in the Pacific theater to keep Japan honest.
Good luck analysing this play.
-
USA has no initiative? What moves does it have to react to. I don’t think you understand the term.
-
US’s hands are tied till end of Turn 3. Unless Axis DOW on it…or Japan attacks unprovoked .
In Atlantic, it cannot go beyond a certain limit.
In Pacific, it cannot park it’s Navy next to Japanese territory…
Is neutral in Pac, cannot use other Allied NB, AB.
So whatever moves it makes away from Continental US is very obvious, and Japan can at its will choose to take action where it wants, more or less.
So, unless there is a DOW, US cannot act to help allies till US4.
Hence Axis have the advantage of deciding the course of the game…hence the initiative.
Definition of “Initiative” (among others):
“Power or opportunity to act or take charge BEFORE others do…”
So, among Allies, only UK, and to an extent Anzac has it, in the opening and early part of the game…
Hope this makes it clearer.
Since we are discussing “Stall” tactics, found it relevent to mention Alied (UK/Anzac) moves, that can tinker with or counter Axis plans.
-
Ah, no initiative until the JDOW.
-
US, USSR, China, ANZAC and France have no initiative in the game… always have to react.
I disagree. For example, while the US may not take the offensive before it is at war, it can still position its fleet in the Pacific in such a way that Japan is forced to react to the US fleet positioning. If the US performs a buildup in sea zone 26, Japan must counter that buildup in sea zone 6, block the route from sea zone 26 to sea zone 6, or abandon sea zone 6. If Japan fails to respond to US fleet positioning, there are consequences when the US is at war.
Now, you may say that as long as sea zone 6 is defended when the US enters the war that Japan is ok, and that’s true. But Japan still has to account for that possibility in its planning, and that is reacting to the US.
When Japan is reacting to the US, the US is the power that has the initiative. The US is the big boy in the Pacific, and Japan ignores the US (even when not at war) at Japan’s peril.
Other examples exist. For instance, ANZAC can turtle up, go to the aid of India, or turn the money islands into a money pit for Japan. Depending on its objectives, Japan has to react differently to all of these situations.
Marsh
-
They do not have the strategic initiative. That doesn’t mean they cant feint, deter, bluff, react, position etc but he is right that the turn order gives them the power to consistently act before the other players, which #2 def. of the word and the one that corresponds to “strategic initiative”
like leading a dance partner
or playing the black player in chessthis is another definition of initiative; the allies do have this form of initiative;
“the ability to assess and initiate things independently.”
-
I think we’re pretty much in agreement – the Allies do have some initiative.
Marsh
-
If there is a buildup in SZ26, means US is not building in Atlantic. It is one thing if the plan is to defend Hawaii…. its totally different if you want to use the initiative to “occupy” SZ 6 !
Japan starts with a vastly superior Navy which when the US is AT PEACE, building 3 units a turn in W. Coast, will take minimum of 3 turns to just come to parity.
With 21 planes Japan has no problem defending SZ 6 . One DD blocker is enough to delay US coming there for a turn.
So with:
- Turn order of play
- The extra turn, with the DD blocker…
- The knowledge of when to strike, esp seeing the buildup in Hawaii
- The bigger Navy
- The Mega Airforce
- And… yes… the Kamikazes… equal to 6 ATTACK Submarines (without defending DDs)…
- No pressure on Germany /Rome in the Atlantic…
Is more than enough to obliterate any US Navy that comes calling .
Japanese play is IMHO the most complex in the game.
If US approach is to stack Hawaii to go forth and sally into SZ 6 and not build an effective navy in Atlantic, with competent German play, a good overall plan to win, barring bad rolls, a competent Japanese player, it is hard to see how the Allies will win.
This scenario has been played against me about 3 times and each and every time, Allies have lost.
Hence, yes, there is initiative, but used the way advised going to SZ 6… will surely lose the game double quick.
-
If US approach is to stack Hawaii to go forth and sally into SZ 6 and not build an effective navy in Atlantic, with competent German play, a good overall plan to win, barring bad rolls, a competent Japanese player, it is hard to see how the Allies will win.
That seems about right but without some IJN presence in SZ6 the USN can get there with its starting force, and not even all of it. 3 scrambling fighters and a DD doesn’t really seem enough to me.
-
The Mahatma Gambit
Curious about this one. Looked it up and it seems to assume that the UK BB will block access to the DEI for TTs in SZ20. It won’t happen that way in most games I’ve seen. Nearly everyone reinforces Kwangsi J1 which puts at least one TT south of the BB which can then go on to hit the DEI. This is normally also defended so WTF?
Is it just an outdated idea killed by some change in the rules or tactics or am I missing something?
-
Transport loading rules according to rulebook I got , said that Transports could not be Loaded in a Hostile seaZone.
Ie: if the UK - BB were to be in SZ 6 , in peace on UK2, and Anzac declares war on Anzac 2….then on Japan Turn 3, they could not load the Transports, as the UK BB on SZ6, made it a hostile zone…
That was the point of The Mahatma Gambit…
If they changed those rules recently, then they removed the only preemptive capability of the Allies in the Pacific.
It’s not easy to have changes made in the rulebook, and should such a change have been made, although I (Ramdas Vaidyanathan )should get credit for that, it would be truly sad to see one more element of advantage added to the Axis domination of the game.
-
I tend to leave TTs in SZ6, SZ19 and/or SZ36
-
Transport loading rules according to rulebook I got , said that Transports could not be Loaded in a Hostile seaZone.
Ie: if the UK - BB were to be in SZ 6 , in peace on UK2, and Anzac declares war on Anzac 2….then on Japan Turn 3, they could not load the Transports, as the UK BB on SZ6, made it a hostile zone…
That was the point of The Mahatma Gambit…
If they changed those rules recently, then they removed the only preemptive capability of the Allies in the Pacific.
It’s not easy to have changes made in the rulebook, and should such a change have been made, although I (Ramdas Vaidyanathan )should get credit for that, it would be truly sad to see one more element of advantage added to the Axis domination of the game.
As I noted above, the rules prohibit that kind of cheese; and rightly so, as it would break the game.
-
Hence, yes, there is initiative, but used the way advised going to SZ 6… will surely lose the game double quick.
I’m so glad we’re in agreement that the Allies do have some initiative of their own. Also, I never advised a build up in sea zone 6 – I used it as an example. Next time you’re looking up definitions, look up “example”. :-)
Marsh
-
That seems about right but without some IJN presence in SZ6 the USN can get there with its starting force, and not even all of it. 3 scrambling fighters and a DD doesn’t really seem enough to me.
The US has enough naval power in the Pacific that Japan still has to pay attention to it, even if the US does not place a build there.
Marsh
-
That is what I was saying.
-
That is what I was saying.
Yep, I should have said I was agreeing with you there. My apology for that oversight!
Marsh
-
MOW,
The rules as such are already so tweaked in favor of Axis. Just look at the way Germany is set to obliterate UK Navy in Atlantic…
So, finally , playing within the rules, I come up with a play to at least give Allies a chance, and it’s termed “cheesy”…
There are different types of play and players.
Some favor the mindless, brute strength if the Axis battering away at Axis, till they win or bust.
Some favor some artful play, with interesting moves, that may confound the former type of players.
So now, this is basically “Dumbing down the game” for the sake of the former.
What this is guaranteed to do is to add BIDs for playing Allies, as the tilt is so profound.
Comparing history to the game, Japan attacks either J1 or J2…
J3, and J4 are definitely not following the historical timeline.
But…playing a J3 or J4, gives immense advantage to Axis in Europe.So UK BB in Hong Kong, generally draws in a J2, DOW…that is point of TMG.
Now, by this rule change, we go back to the old J4G4 boring game…which is almost always an Axis win without bid.
Before TMG was proposed, there were numerous players , good ones at that, who were bemoaning this very type of play.
TMG was criticized, that UK is “giving” away the BB…
With a mild Allied counter, suddenly, it’s all “cheesy”… and they do a rule change to shaft the Allies.
There is a reason why Chess played in 1800 or 1900 s can be compared to now, and beauty of moves can be appreciated.
Imagine suddenly, they say “Castling” is illegal…or change the way Bishops move… then the game is substantially changed.
That is why rules should nor be changed so abruptly, it destroys comparitive ability of the game…over time. There are choices one can make called “House Rules”.
-----------------------’
Now, as far as US initiative in Pacific, the only thing it can do other than defend Hawaii is bunch up in Queensland…
In the short term, neither one of these sites does not present much of a threat to Japan.
Look at the common scenario…
All Japan SZ6 navy joins SZ 33 Navy in Carolines…and lands 2 SBRS and 6 FTRs there too…UK Malaya BB joins Anzac navy in Queensland.
Remember, Japan can selectively obliterate Allied Navies at its will. MORE IMPORTANTLY , also take hits on planes Alone, and land new FTRs on undamaged CVs…they have 11 of them…!
It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!
(Unless they changed that too…)… and wipe off half the Allied Navy… and USN will have to decide to vacate the SZ or attack the Japanese Navy .Initial USN, from PHP, SFO and Hawaii, combined would be hard put to damage the IJN…forget destroy… And they risk being destroyed the follow up force Japan sends. All this when the islands are taken…no allied Navy will get there in ages…
Most folks play Japan close to mainland China with Factory buy… but there is also the agressive Naval and Air build in Carolines play…which leads to very narrow number of reactive actions US can take.
-
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope. it cant do that.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think. The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions; the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack; the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
Suggested Topics
