- TripleA is currently not working with the new forums.
- Old uploads have been fixed.
1st turn Japanese attack on Hawaii
After the Japanese early IC vs. transports only debate, it seems the 2nd Japanese controversy is whether or not Japan should attack Hawaii in turn 1. Let's break it down pro and con:
JAPAN - PRO
1. Sends a powerful fleet in range of the US west coast.
2. Destroys the US carrier needed in Europe and threatens the remaining US Pacific fleet.
3. May force the US to take energy away from attacking Germany (temporarily).
4. May scare the US with a hidden strategy (could be used as a bluff or to try an advanced strategy).
JAPAN - CON
1. Takes badly needed aircraft away from the Asian battles.
2. Leaves your transports unprotected in Japan (if their not with the fleet).
3. US counter-attacks may destroy or reduce your fleet to 1 or 2 battleships. Japan can't afford to replace their fleet which could be better used intact elsewhere.
4. The US may control the Pacific and seriously harm your efforts without your fleet protection.
US - With Counter-Attack
1. The US will lose all or most of it's remaining fleet and aircraft which are badly needed in Europe.
2. Forces the UK to provide the US with more fleet protection in the Atlantic.
3. May give more strength to a "Japan First" option.
US - Without Counter-Attack
1. The US may lose the remaining 2 ships anyway depending on Japan's intentions.
2. The US could lose time regaining lost territory from Japanese West Coast attacks.
Overall, Japan is taking a gamble on what the US may do. It could cost the Allies an un-needed delay or totally backfire on Japan.
bossk last edited by
Again, my ideas on this point seem to conflict with most other players. I like to attack the Americans at Hawaii with my air force (fighters from Japan, Manchuria, AC, bomber, land fighters on AC, bomber on Wake, move fleet around Wake). Although this removes my fleet from danger it limits my offensive capabilities on the mainland. I consider this to be a fair trade because land forces are much cheaper than a new navy. This puts me in a stong position in the Pacific and I can easily get more forces to the mainland.
one thing I like about the pacific is it's so fun and unpredictable.if you think it will work go for it.
Japan must ATTACK! Send 2 Battleships, AC, sub, 1 fighter, and the bomber. This is more than sufficient to destroy the US Hawaii fleet. Chances are Japan will lose their sub, if any loses at all.
If Japan doesnt attack, then the US will draw Japan's attention from the mainland…which is no good. If the US counter-attacks with 1 Battleship, trans. as fodder, fighter, and bomber, chances are they will do damage, but also wipe themselves out as well...and even slow their attempt at Europe...which is another no-no.
hawaii is an interesting island, its in the middle of the pacific, it can strike mexico, panama, west coast, alaska, canada, japan, australia, etc. It might actually be a good idea to invade it first turn then use one of the bs's to capture australia (to strike india after) and send the other bs and ac and sub if survived to destroy the american bs and transport.
it's pretty cool playing japan.the possibilities.
Your quote, "If Japan doesn't attack, then the US will draw Japan's attention from the mainland…which is no good".
Why would this happen?
If Japan lets the US fleet live, the US will have the option of sending over its surviving fleet as well as any new aditions (such as transports), over to pester Japan. Japan may deal with it by defending its waters with its current navy, which may mean giving up useful transports as fodder. If the US are succesful, they might take Japan, or land in Far East Russia (which would devestate Japan's Asia conquest).
By the US doing this, the Japanese will have to react to the American approach….which means diverting its very modest amount of $$ from the mainland to defending against a landing or naval attack.
So all-in-all, for the Japs NOT to attack Hawaii, is basically seting up for their own dismantle....maybe!
I say maybe because the US may carry it's navy to the Atlantic for use on Germany...which is still no good for the Japs...it just means it will take the allies a little longer to deal with Japan.
Japan can hold off the US for many turns. It won't be until turn 3 when the US can attack the Japanese fleet with sufficient forces. Germany has at least 4 more turns on top of that US free. Germany can hold Africa longer and drive sooner into Russia. If Japan purchased an early IC and captured 1 more, the lose of their fleet is less significant to a US player determined to take Asia or Japan proper. Germany, in this scenario, is totally unmolested by the US. This can be very bad for Russia with no US help coming. The British don't have the buying power to help in Europe significantly alone.
I'll agree your plans may succeed. But it's a hard road for the Allies. The Axis has the time to better prepare for this threat. If the Allies lose momentum, Russia will fall. I've tried this many times (I still am). Unfortunately, the Axis can get the upperhand more often…
Zero last edited by
I don't like to attack Hawaii on turn 1 for 2 reasons.
1. It think its best to use the battleships for the intial turns to assist in amphibious assaults on more valuable territories.
2. There is a considerable risk in attacking Hawaii. If the Japanese only get 2 hits in round one. The U.S. can retreat its sub towards the Japanese mainland. If both Japanese Battleships are at Hawaii, then any transports at Japan will be poorly defended and at a severe risk for being sunk by the US sub. If Japan loses 2 or more transports on turn 1 to the US sub, it would stall the Asia invasion for 1-2 turns.
Germany and Japan have to take British and Russian territory. Britain and Russia have to stop them from doing this. G and J are richer than B and R, and they start with much stronger armies. Thus, B and R require help from the USA. So, the secondary objective of G and J is stop USA from helping its allies.
Most naval units have better defense than offense and so do fighters. Japan gains nothing from destroying USA's navy. USA must destroy Japan's navy if it is going to get strong help to Asia. Thus, Japan should pull back its navy and defend - USA will have to attack it eventually. Because naval units and fighters have better defense, Japan always has the odds in its favour when USA attacks its navy. Thus, Japan should concentrate on the invasion of Asia and just build a navy that is as big or almost as big as USA's to defend.
i dont agree with that, a battleship and a carrier in the atlantic on turn 3 is lethal for germany. Battleships wont help much if the allies retreat their forces inland (sinkiang, china, yakut). Only Africa is then at risk of being captured thanks to the ships.
edit: same goes for fighters, they will help you capture terrain more easily but you will most likely run out of infantry sooner or later.
[ This Message was edited by: greensleeves on 2002-01-09 03:57 ]
I totally agree with you…I was just setting an example for you. Japan can hold off the US, but not without drawing funds from the mainland. If US goes after Japan then Germany is given a chance at taking Russia. I agree.
your quote: "Japan gains nothing from destroying USA's navy."
my response: "WHAT?!?" are you kidding? Japan has everything to gain by destroying the US navy at Hawaii...and so does Germany. Japan has overwhelming fire power to send at the US. I've done it more than once where I was Japan, and came out victorious with no loses. Not even my sub was hit. Its all about odds...and the odds are with Japan for this attack. I see your point about naval units defences being stronger than their attack values, and your principal may be applied in other circumstances, but at the same time the Japanese can easily take out the US fleet. Sometimes aggressive play is called for to have a long term effect.
attacking is superior to defending in several ways:
1. planes, ships and tanks can move to the battlefield from other territories, you cant move when defending a territory so you cant call in reinforcements from other territories.
2. The attacker chooses territory to attack, attacking troops and defending troops. Thats why a battle is most likely gonna end up in favour of the attacker and gonna hurt the defender more.
not attacking may hurt you in the long run. It may just give the enemy that extra bit of time they need to over power you.
Yanny last edited by
100% of the time the US attack must be performed. If you let that stuff live, Germany will fall VERY fast.
I think that Japan has to find away to stop the americans in the pacific and go for russia not using too many risky attacks in order for the Axis to win.
Zero last edited by
ONe topic not dicussed yet is what order the Japanese player should lose pieces if the U.S. gets more casualty than would be expected.
Assuming the transport has 2 inf to invade Hawaii, I think the best order of removal for the attacker would be:
-Battleship (Things are going badly, at this point)
I think the Battleship is less valuable in the long run than a fighter even if it costs half as much to replace. If the US counter attacks the fighter will defend as well as a battleship.
KING TIGER last edited by
I agree with Field Marshall and Major Damage
on this one. Everyone seemed to point out the
effects on Germany with the Fleet comming
over to the Atlantic but also having it in
the pacific isn't good for Japan. That fleet
has to be taken care of regardless of the
round. So your best chance for the Axis is
Japan's first turn.
i recently though of using the sub to block the retreat of the us fleet into the pacific. Any thoughts on this?
KING TIGER last edited by
On that note I have actually used the sub to
kill the British transport and used other
Jap stuff to go after the US fleet. Therefor
I find better use of the Sub than as a
suicide. It is a logical move though.
bossk last edited by
Indeed, I also like to kill the british transport if he is foolish enough to come within range of my sub. This is why as Britian I consider trying to move the Austrailians in the first round or two pure folly.
yea i don't think it really matters if japan attacks US in hawaii….the pacific is pretty useless anyway...might as well destroy what they do have though...
Lately I've been trying to have Germany hold the Suez canal long enough to allow the Japanese fleet to enter the Med (earliest by turn 4, if Japan doesn't attack Hawaii in turn 1 and the US withdrawals it's fleet immediately to the Atlantic). This gives the Allies quite a jolt if it works. The down side is your unprotected transports in the Japanese SZ. This can protect Southern Europe from invasion (with German fighter support) and may allow attacks on the Allied fleets. What else do you do with the Japanese fleet after the Asian coast is in Japanese hands?
yeah,i normally play with my uncle i am germany and my cousin is normally japan he,always attacks the america fleet but with severe casualtys i dont think it is worth it myself,try doing it when the 2 british fighters do, a suicide bombing on your transport and battleship in japan your other transport is sunk by the plane in india, and i dont know if am right in this but,my uncle has had the game for about 30 years he has no instructions but he gets his bomber from uk and sends it to kill the sub in solomon waters and lands on australia can you do this , i let him do this move i trust he is playing correct he has had the game for 30 years,so anyway am left with a battleship and aircraft carrier,if i attack with them,i normally lose 2planes first attack, so i have to reinforce it with another 2 planes, (he has sent 1 russian plane to his carrier) so am left with about 2 planes left, and can only attack with 1 plane in asia,so i defeat the american men and plane with many casualties i then dont build an industrial complex becuase that russia will just take it and am unable to reinforce myself next tuern due to the fact that england took out all my transports the only option is not to attack hawaii.