No more Pearl Harbours?



  • I wonder, whether it’s really a good idea for Japan to go after Pearl Harbour.
    What can the American fleet do?
    On its own it’s no real threat for Japan especially if USA moves their fighters to Europe, the additional fighter might help them, but if Japan attacks he is likely to loose a bomber. Since Germany can’t attack a British aircraft carrier (AC) anyway, another American AC, doesn’t really matter. The battelship can be used for amphibious assaults, but to prevent it and the transport from reaching the Attlantic you would have to move your fleet to the western Panama Sea Zone and it would take some time to get your fighters back to Asia.

    If you don’t attack you can use your AC for protecting your transports from any British or Russian fighters and you Battelships are available for an attack on India. Also the American player might be tempted to put some of his IPCs into the Pacific, what could be better for the Axis?



  • I totally agree with you. The allies want to get moving FAST in the Atlantic, there is not need to wait for any Pacific fleet to move around.

    I do have an urge however to use everything I can each turn. Japan can’t attack with 2 of it’s fighters and most likely BBs on Turn 1 unless doing Pearl. Is this a good enough reason? Maybe not.

    With an allied fighter in Yakut, Japan can’t build transports on T1 and do Pearl. With the Jap navy on Hawaii it’s too far to threaten Afica for awhile.

    When I play the americans often my Pacific fleet just hovers around the Panama canal looking for a weakness in Japan or just an opportunity to threaten with the Pacific fleet, however weak the threat may be.

    To do Pearl right you need to put everything you can in pret’near, resources that could be used elsewhere.

    I never do Pearl, but far be it from me to conclude I am always right…. 🙂

    BB



  • I agree that sometimes Pearl Harbor seems a little silly sometimes, but as the US I like to have my own fleet in the Atlantic. One problem with the British carrier/US fighters on T1 being the only strong allied navy is the US transports always have to go to the same place as the UK transports/carrier. Otherwise they are sitting ducks for the German airforce.
    If the US and UK have seperate, except for the US fighters on the Brits carrier, fleets the US can drop off in WE, FN, or Africa every turn, while the Brits can drop off in any of those plus Gibraltar, EE or Karelia. Granted it takes a couple of turns for them to go through Panama, but I like having the flexibility.



  • Since the USA can make a big impact in Africa/Europe theaters using TR’s ONLY–taking advantage of the UK CV build you mentioned–the USA Atlantic force is just hanging out waiting for something to do. Basically, USA doesn’t need them so they can make a great nuisance of themselves before being destroyed or (possibly) form the core of a strike force against Japan’s #1 resource, her TRs. At the very least, the presence of a medium-to-large USA fleet in the Pacific will limit Japan’s movement options vis-a-vis her TRs (as opposed to complete mastery of the Pacific for Japan), while a few USN capital ships can prove a royal pain-in-the butt for Germany if they make it there.

    The chief reason for a T1 “Pearl Harbor II” (so-named because in the context of the game, PH I has already happened) by Japan is that the USN CV fleet is just hanging b**ls-out there at Hawaiian Islands & it will never again be as easy to deal such a devastating blow to Allied naval power as it is there on T1. 1 SUB, 1 TR & 1 CV represent 38 IPC’s-worth of equipment you can destroy & prevent from threatening either you OR your ally, Germany. PLUS, you can do it with little risk to your own forces.

    There are 2 basic ways to do this. I call them “Pearl Harbor II” & “Pearl Harbor Lite”. Which to use depends on your overall strategy. In PHII, you commit overwhelming naval forces (like 2 BB, 1 CV, 1 FTR, 1 BMR & a SUB) along with a Hawaiian Islands invasion force consisting of 2 INF and a FTR. You could also hit w/ 3 FTR in the SZ, but you weaken the landing force(if you still choose to go forward w/ it) & risk an additional US FTR available for a counterstroke on their turn–might be worth it. In PH-Lite you attack w/ minimal forces w/ the exclusive objective to eliminate the US ships & plane w/ minimal commitment. In this case, a BB, SUB, FTR & BMR are usually sufficient, although more or different forces may be dispatched depending again on your overall T1 objectives.

    Basically as Japan, though I would avoid attacking in more than 2 places T1, as to do otherwise you run the risk of spreading your forces too thin. Seek a steady upward curve of attack power plateauing around Ts 5-6. Don’t try to win the game T1 unless you are a gambler!

    Ozone27



  • I am not a big advocate of the USA putting its whole fleet into the Atlantic. I think its overkill. The Germans are insane if they are willing to risk their precious FTRs–unsupported–attacking a naval force that will be immediately rebuilt the next turn anyway. The Italian fleet is incapable of sallying against even a moderate UK/USA fleet. And provided a little bit of cooperation between UK & USA, they can easily win Africa back with a few INF & FTRs after sinking the Italian fleet. The main battle is in Europe & everyone knows it, but this doesn’t require the whole USA fleet to do it! Use TRs/INF/FTRs in Europe–use any leftover IPCs (if there are such things :lol: ) to either research, or to build a few SUBs in the Pacific. Interesting results either way. Its unlikely anything more than one BB (or 1 CV) will be very useful in the Atlantic.

    Basically if Japan Pearl Harbors, THEN evacuate the fleet. If not, take it as an opportunity.

    That is all. Return to your posts.

    Ozone27



  • C_F, I agree it’s sometimes a royal pain having the US transports follow the Brit defense (god help you if you screw up that 1-2 move…). But, the main reason the brit player would move the fleet is to drop off troops to Africa. Yeah it’s an entire round no troops get to norway but it’s not like they are lost. Maybe each ally drops off 1/2 to 2/3 of a full transport load and ensure it’s mostly tanks. Having to drop them in Algeria instead of FW. Africa is a tiny price to protect both transport fleets and have them both pumping dudes into Africa/Europe. Going the other way, into EE or Ukraine as you mentioned is where you have a hiccup if both fleets must stick together.

    This doesn’t occur often in our circle but sometimes there are a stack of tanks with little fodder for defense. If the German player makes the mistake of the thinking the allies won’t pounce on it for fear of losing a full turn of US transatlantic shipments then I spring the America tactic “Japanese Overload” (I think you can search for it if curious?) if applicable, or I bite the bullet and build bombers, gotta weigh the cost/benefit on each scenario I guess.

    Ozone, if I were to do ‘pearl’ then it would be one of either of your plans. Bringing in the loaded transport is what wrentches my gut and has for years. You’re figuring Jap takes 1 hit and if 2 then a plane and if a plane then the ftr? Taking the island certainly eliminates the threat of the 2 ftrs, the americans might have to attack you anyways for fear of ‘use it or lose it’. I gives you more saftey in the off chance the Yanks does god forbide 3 hits. One variation to your PH-II I do is bring in the transport empty and use 3 ftrs, leaving 2 ftrs and the bmbr for asia. I’m hoping I do 3 hits on T1, lose the transport. Having a sub left for fodder the next turn makes me feel safe if the Yanks attack with all they can I’d end up on the winning side. If the brits build that carrier on T1 then the US ftrs MUST fly to it (assuming the german luftwaffe poses a credible threat) then there is almost no chance for a US counterpunch.

    Ozone, I also totally agree with your long term view of Japan and how to get there, now if only more German players understood the need to last a bit past that! 🙂

    BB



  • Granted the UK fleet never goes anywhere except to Africa, but check this out.
    T1
    UK: 1 Carrier, 1 Transport
    Move Any remaining UK fleet to UK SZ (Possibly WCA Tran. or BS)
    US: 4 Transports, 2 Infantry
    Move Fighters to UK Carrier
    Move EUS Transport to UK SZ
    Move all infantry and armor to EUS or W Canada
    T2
    G: To smart to attack either UK SZ with whole Luftwafte or 4 EUS Transports with 1 Bomber.
    UK: 2-3 Transports Some Infantry Depending on Money

    Now comes the problem.

    Does the UK move the carrier to africa to defend the US Transports that will be bringing 6 inf and 1 armor or does it defend it’s newly purchased transports?

    You could wait one whole round so that the US and UK could go after africa together, but now Germany has had 3 turns to itself in Africa and the Russians don’t like it.

    However if Japan was kind enough not to destroy the US fleet in the Pacific. The carrier/fighter, BS, sub, and transport can meet the five US tranports in the Algiers SZ on T2. This gives you an extra fighter and BB to attack any German units that are there and a strongly defended fleet and all of the tranports the US will probably ever need.

    Furthermore this allows the UK to transport totally independently and can drop off in EE, Germany, Gibraltar, or Karelia without the US transports having to waste a turn following them around.



  • That opening allied move is almost a direct copy of what I do. I tend to only build 3 US transports and the rest land. To avoid a hiccup for the US, you must build 2 loads for each transport you build and a load for each transport you alread own.

    I’ll point out the obvious flaw in that otherwise brilliant move. 🙂 It takes the US fleet 3 turns to get to Algeria. Remember to draw the line through the panama canal. The US pacific fleet is in the middle of the atlantic at the end of the US second turn. Also, if the brits do build the carrier, then the Japs should hit Pearl as the US fighters can’t attack the Jap fleet or else they sacrafice the Brit carrier. The brits WON’T like that at all! 🙂

    If the US build 3 transports (unless the german bomber can hit, then I am scared and build 4 transports assuming my initial 1 is with the UK fleet) then they build 4 infantry. This gives them exactly 5.5 transport loads. If the intial US transport takes 2 infantry to England that leaves 4.5 loads. You really need 6 loads, 3 to go with the transports and 3 to be in E/W Canada. In fact, the best logistical situation calls for building only 2 transports and lots of equipment then build 1 transport per round until 5 are available. Of course the German bomber may dictate otherwise!

    So you don’t put guys in Africa until the 3rd round, plan on that. Keep a guy in S. Africa and make a lone tank try to take it, don’t make it easy and let Germany hit you in Kenya with the tank AND infantry. On round 2 the Brits really can’t drop lots of guys of in Africa anyways, even with 2 transports it’s most likely not enough. When the US comes in on R2 to the UK they take Norway from the Germans. (I play russia restricted, the russians are huge in Karelia but it’s dicey). On german R3 Norway is gone so a tank and 3 inf are not threatening Karelia. Then on R3 you go big into Africa, the fact you can also go big into europe causes the Germans to be yanked back from threatening Karelia like a lapdog on a short leash……

    BB



  • I agree if Britain builds an AC, the USA has to move it’s fighter to Europe and can’t counterattack. And Pearl Harbour makes sense. Though I would rather loose a battleship than a fighter. In the case Britain doesn’t build an AC I still wouldn’t attack Pearl Harbour.



  • My bad blocky I was looking at a map online and couldn’t make out one of the SZ borders. Three turns to Algeria does not make Pearl Harbor nearly as important, but what the hell else are you going to do with your battleships and sub. You can coastal bombard in a place or two, and you can use them to protect tranports that harrass Alaska, Mexico, etc…
    If you go west with them and use them to attack India then the US can make problems for your transports. I say take the two battlships and the sub and send everything else towards asia, especially if Russia and the UK make a slightly heavier stand in India and Eastern Russia.

    Another option is operation Ronaldo Ichiyama, said with a Brazilian accent. I call it that, I just made up the name, but I am stealing the idea from someone else, because I knew a Japanese guy who was born in Brazil and of course had a Brazilian accent.

    If the UK builds a carrier and the UK and Russia are light in east Asia on T1 then take the whole fleet and the bomber except 1 transport, thats 1 sub, 1 bomber, 1 transport w/2 inf, full carrier,and two BS to Pearl Harbor. The Philipines transport stays in home waters.

    Your objective is Brazil, but it also makes a tempting target to the US fleet and airforce. If the US attacks you with everything then both your fleets are pretty mangled but the UK carrier gets no support and Germany can sink it, which would severly hamper the allied shipping. If they do not bring the two extra fighters they get toasted in the battle.

    You go through the Panama Canal and take Brazil on T3. On T4 you build a IC in Brazil and on T5 3 subs. The mission now is to introduce that pesky allied fleet to a real armada. If you have super subs you can really do some damage.

    Asia will be a little tough without that transport and two fighters, not to mention the money going to subs in Brazil. But, you are using the full capabilities of your fleet and this game is won and lost in two places. The Russian front and the Atlantic Ocean.

    The US can stop if if they want, do not go crazy trying to defend the IC in Brazil, but if you can produce subs for two or three turns while they are marching to South America you can really slow down the supply line to Europe.

    Instead of Brazil you can go west for Egypt. Egypt has the advantage of being able to support the your buddies in Asia and the German med. fleet, and is more protected, but only 2 subs per turn and the US now has a powerful fleet that it can block up the med with.



  • C_F, you’re right, there’s not much to do with the Pacific fleet. I’m not sure I’d so a suicide run into India with what’s left of the US fleet.

    As for the Japs going for Brazil…… That’s an aweful lot of equipment being tied up for 4 rounds just to get 3-4 IPCs starting on the 5th round. Even if you don’t build extra subs that’s 112 IPC’s of equipment doing not much for 5 rounds in order to get 3 IPC thereafter. What if the US put bombers in Alaska, you’d need factories in asia as you couldn’t transport of Japan. As the Americans I’d let you stay in Brazil all game long, it’s only 3 IPC after all. Hey, maybe after 4-5 rounds I’d do brazil but those units can earn more keep elsewhere IMHO 🙂

    I think we all agree the US focus is Germany at the start. Also that if you can get the allied atlantic navy going before the pacific fleet shows up you do so.

    If the Japs do pearl and the us fighters must protect the brit carrier I’d use the Pacific transport to block the japs south of mexico and put the BB west of Panama. The japanes can ftr attack the BB but it could be costly if it has to go 2 rounds. The jap must split the attack, the transport effectively takes out two BBs.

    Even Japan ignores the US pacific fleet I pull it back but only to W. Panama. Next round the newly built transports go to the UK, perhaps slip the pacific fleet to E. Panama if you really really need to go to africa on T3 and need to split the fleet. But it’s no sense having 2 carriers and a US BB in the UK waters for 8 rounds for the 1 or 2 times you need to split the fleet.

    If it’s off W. Panama basking in the sun for a few rounds so what. Well, it forms the nucleus of a dangerous fleet that in 3 rounds could slap the Jap really hard if he isn’t carefull. If the US has saved a few IPC’s and has 40, BAM 5 subs, BB, CV and Sub move up (yeah maybe move the transport to the atlantic to get up to 5 transports but no more are needed there). US should have 3-4 ftrs, BAM they move in. Perhaps 1-2 bombers BAM, they fly over. Next round move up or 4 more subs then move up building 2 bombers on the round you move up. Knock the Jap navy off Japan and it’s all over but the crying. A good way to shake up a stalemate in Europe.

    BB



  • 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:

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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 bomber

    After 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



  • @Meijing:

    I wonder, whether it’s really a good idea for Japan to go after Pearl Harbour.

    Yes.

    @Meijing:

    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



  • @BigBlocky:

    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.

    @BigBlocky:

    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.

    @BigBlocky:

    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.

    @BigBlocky:

    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.



  • @BigBlocky:

    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.

    @BigBlocky:

    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.

    @BigBlocky:

    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.

    @BigBlocky:

    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.


  • 2019 Moderator

    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 😄 (on Hard setting too! 😄 )



  • 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


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 44
  • 18
  • 4
  • 34
  • 22
  • 24
  • 23
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

74
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts