Axis J1 attack on U.S. - What is wrong with this strategy?
My Japanese attack strategy in Global 1940 is in a rut. To break out I plan to attack the American Fleet around Hawaii on turn J1, capture Midway and attack the Philippines as well as Hong Kong. Play conservative in China and on the Russian/Korean Border. Capture Hawaii and Malaya and/or Borneo on J2.
Here is the more detailed attack plan.
Have the Germans attack the American Cruiser and Transport and British Destroyer and Transport with Submarines - one Submarine on each attack. Germans do traditional attacks on British Navy (hit sea zone 111 and 109) and attack France and Yugoslavia. G2 the Germans press toward Spain instead of heading toward Russia or London. G3 The Germans hit Sweden and Turkey. All of the German moves are to allow German capture by land of Gibraltar. This should prevent Italy from being overrun by an early entry into the war by America.
On J1 the Japanese build an Aircraft Carrier and a Transport. On J1 they attack Hong Kong, Philippines, Midway and American Fleet around Hawaii. Three Japanese Carriers with 1 or 2 Destroyers, aka the “Eastern Fleet”, (not sure where to place Destroyers) stop at Midway with a transport to capture it. Three Fighters, Three Tactical Bombers, Two Bombers and 2 Submarines and maybe 1 Destroyer attack American Fleet.
Two Transports with 2 Battleships and 2 Cruisers carrying 2 Infantry and 2 Artillery, aka the “the Southern Fleet”, assault the Philippines. Attack Hong Kong on J1 and play conservative in China and Russian Border.
These attacks will work and the Japanese Fleet at Midway can withstand any US1 American counterattack.
ON J2 press on and capture Hawaii with the Eastern Fleet and move the Southern Fleet to Malaya or Borneo.
I know that the players on this forum have played many games. Please point any and all flaws with both the tactics and strategy of this plan. Please point out any long term problems with the plan as well.
Thanks in advance.
Axis need to grow in the game. Therefor keeping the US out as long as possible could be crucial to winning the game. The axis need the initiative. Once you lose that, you’ll probably lose the game.
Your attacks and tactics seem good (and they are) but I don’t think they will be useful in the long run.
Also attack truely neutrals can give the british advantages in africa by capturing mozambique and angola and the allies can get a lot of IPC’s in south america. Also the deal with Turkey is that once you lose it, the allies have another front opened into Europe that is easily accessible (no need for transports).
Axis usually need a quick game to win. If the USA can enter the war early (and frnakly, the loss of the philipines, hawaii and midway aren’t that big of a deal to USA, especially because they will probably recapture Hawaii the next turn or the one after that), they will intervene too quickly.
The losses you described for the USA in your attacks will be recovered too quickly.
But honestly, I’ve never tried a J1 attack on USA. I usually keep them out until they can declare war on me so I don’t really know if it can work. I also think Japan won’t make enough IPC’s to face the US and the others in a confrontation so early.
I have never tried a J1 attack in Global either for the fear that an early U.S. entry would cripple Italy beyond repair.
But the Axis have their greatest force advantage on turn 1. Then they gradually lose the edge in military force due to the Allies greater income. With this strategy I am trying to use the greater force advantage of the Axis to wound the Allied Forces, specifically the American Navy so the Axis can grab territory while the Allies are weak. I was hoping to hold the island of Hawaii for a while.
The attack on the Philippines kills an American destroyer, submarine and fighter that normally get away. That is 24 IPC’s. The Cruiser, Destroyer, Submarine and Transport get killed turn 1 near Hawaii. That is an additional 31 IPC’s of lost force. That is 55 lost IPC’s of American force on turn 1. All of these forces will add to future American builds to make a Navy you have to deal with or turn 4 or 5 anyway. It will just be earlier in detail instead all at once.
The flaw in the plan is that the Japanese Navy in the DEI is weak compared to British Naval and Air forces. In addition, it will be difficult to deal with an aggressive Russia if I take all my planes away from Korea or Japan. I was hoping to take Hong Kong turn 1, Malaya turn 2 and build factories in Hong Kong, French Indochina and/or Malaya. Then build army and naval forces to defeat the British as required.
I will try the attack this weekend. We will see how it plays out.
Please post any specific or general flaws in the above plan.
This is my theory on a G1/J1 attack:
You can’t hit enough, with enough, to make it worth the extra Allied money.
Regarding strict neutrals, don’t attack them. It’s that simple. If the Allies attack, the Axis gets the Swedish, Iberian and possibly Turkish units and money, in addition to the Mongols (I believe). If the Axis attacks, the Allies get Turkey, Iberia, Mozambique/Angola and S. America.
I understand that the Allies will net more money if we attack a strict neutral like Spain. But I am trying to figure out a way to hold Gibraltar from the Allies. Or at least hold it a lot longer. Every game the Allies start dumping troops and ships around that port in preparation for an invasion of Italy. The Axis cannot afford to match them transport for transport. My plan was to simply build infantry in France and Northern Italy and walk them over to Spain then Gibraltar. No money wasted trying to build a transport fleet and a navy to defend it.
On the money issue, if Axis grab Spain, Portugal, Turkey and Sweden then that is a +8 income bonus. The Allies get Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Angola, Mozambique, and Saudi Arabia. (I did not count Brazil, as the Allies can get it anyway.) That is a 10 point income bonus and it takes a while to get all of it. That is not so bad.
That however, does not count the extra 4 troops from Afghanistan, 6 for Mongolia, 2 from Saudi Arabia, 4 from Mozambique and Angola. Add that to about 6 more from South America and that is total of 18 additional troops that can be picked up to bring to the front. The Axis will lose some troops attacking the neutrals as well to add to the troop imbalance.
So the Allies get 2 more IPC a turn and 18 additional ground troops. The Axis lose some troops, hold Gibraltar without having to buy a navy and can attack the southern Russia with Italian Navy amphibious assaults assuming they have won control of the Mediterranean from the British. This may not be so bad…
Alsch91 last edited by
Well control of Gibraltar doesn’t really matter much at that point - the Allies can just start landing and building in Spain directly. They’ll be in France soon afterwards.
I agree; it’s a strategy that can be useful in a very specific situation but it usually isn’t a good idea.
Don’t forget the the US can get in Spain in 1 move. As said before, holding gibraltar doesn’t matter that much in that case as they will open up a whole new front in a very simple way.
The Grand Master last edited by
Attacking the US before turn 3 is a bad Idea for a whole lot of reasons, unless they carelessly leave a lot of hardware vulnerable which might be worth it…… but it’s always a slippery slope bringing them into the war early.
We played this weekend. The J1 attack killed everything in the sea zone around Hawaii, invaded the Philippines and Hong Kong with no losses except ground troops. On J2 I attacked and captured Hawaii. Still, killing about 50 IPC’s of American planes and ships on J1 was not too shabby. Killed 4 Inf and 4 Fighters on turn 2 in the invasion of Hawaii. But I lost 3 Fighters and 2 Tactical Bombers in the assault. Poor die rolling. The loss was heavier than I expected. To my surprise the Americans went 100% on the Atlantic and reinforced Gibraltar. They only built enough not to lose the Western United States to the Japanese.
The Germans captured Spain, Portugal and Gibraltar and went on the strategic defensive. Later they captured Sweden and Turkey. The Italians got Saudi Arabia.
Over time the Japanese took the rest of the Pacific and the Allies surrendered around turn 8.
It was not a good test of the strategy because the American response was so aggressive toward the Atlantic. It may do worse if the Americans go all Pacific.
How experienced was your opponent? The consensual wisdom from most of the experienced players posting in this forum (different threads as well) is to never have U.S. pool all its IPC production in one theater. This is what the Axis wants to get the Allies to do - which you did, so congrats on that. Knowing your opponent is also part of the game which you seem to do well with. Would be interesting to see your strategy played once more against a more balanced allied response.
Personally, I have only played global a few times and won for the same reason - the U.S. went all in on the Pacific side and I was able to take out Russia with no U.S. help there. Playing again this week.
The Grand Master last edited by
100% in one theater for the US is unnecessary. There are plenty of American resources to make a fight on both sides, while slightly tilting more on one side (Atlantic if Sealion, Pacific if not). 100% is overkill which will leave the US somewhere with a lot of hardware and nothing to fight, because an experienced player will make sure that the war is fought and won away from that huge American stack.
Especially if you attack and take Hawaii, first thing I would do is spent enough money on the pacific to take it back instantly. It gets you your NO back and it destroys a significant part of the Japanese fleet wich is really hard to build up… Whenever I see an opportunity to attack a few japanese ships, I take it. That’s by far the only way how I think the japanese can be stopped, by destroying their fleet wich is really hard to build up again and if you took Hawaii and hold it, it means a part of your fleet is there, in range by the american navy wich they can rebuild quite easily. Europe will survive a few rounds so you still have plenty of time to reinforce that.
What’s wrong is attacking the true neutrals.
Maybe an agressive Japan combined with a Sealion could work.
One Player played all the Allies. He loves to assault Gibraltar and head for Italy. We have seen it often so the Axis plan for it. Actually this last game the Axis counted on it.
He is good player in the sense that he rarely makes tactical blunders, but he loves to put all the American money on one side or another. I think the forum view is correct, that is a strategic mistake. It is better to balance your American resources based on the threat level - how close Germany/Italy vs Japan is to winning.
I am not saying that capturing the the strict neutrals or attacking on J1 is always going to be a game winner for the Axis. But they can be a tool in your tool box. See massive American navy heading for Italy? Close off Gibraltar with German Army. That is better than being seeing Rome overrun. Tired of seeing the Americans maul in the Pacific? Shake things up - kill a lot of their stuff on Turn 1. Also it is difficult to for the Americans to retake Hawaii after losing that many resources AND plan to retake England after Sea Lion.
Kreuzfeld last edited by
pretty sure this should never work against good play, and should NOT be a part of the toolbox.
for a strategy to be good, it should not decrease your chances of winning against perfect play while increasing your chances of winning against bad play.
china should become a monster with this strategy, anzak+ india should be able to get ALOT of income the next few rounds, US should be able to build enough in US 1 to take hawaii in US 2, unless japan sends everything that way, in which case UK+ anzak can take almost anything.
regarding you attacking neutrals, that is a HORRIBLE idea. if you want to defend gibraltar, build a german bomber every turn, they can hit the seazones around gibraltar from w germany and land in france, building 1-2 subs every turn in addition should mean that the allies cannot stack gibraltar until round 4-5 anyways, prolly round 6. Frankly I dont see how losing 3 landunits in iberia, while giving the allies 8 free inf in South America can help you holding it. to hold france is difficult enough while you have to use energy against russia.
the only reason I see for the axis to take neutrals is just 1. taking turkey could give easy acces for tanks and mechs to the middle east with all the NOs there (3 in iraq and 2 in egypt). However it is highly doubtful that it will be enough to win the game.
He is good player in the sense that he rarely makes tactical blunders, but he loves to put all the American money on one side or another.
so what you are saying is that he is a BAD player.
Making tactical mistakes can be avoided by thinking carefully about your moves. Mismanaging your resources should guarantee that you loose every game against players who dont.
The are two plans at work here.
The strict neutral strategy should not work against a good player because of all the extra infantry (18+) that the Allies get. But those infantry take a while to get into battle. The troops is South America take at least a few turns to get into the fight if there are no transports handy in the Atlantic. It may even be a turn or two before all the extra income comes on line for the Allies as well. And the Axis get to decide when to attack the neutrals, so they have initiative. I have never seen the Allies attack strict neutrals.
As far a turn 1 attack by Japan on the U.S. - Japan can defend Hawaii and the DEI for a least a few turns from the Western Allies and the Americans. Japan can build a Aircraft Carrier turn 1 with a Transport. Attack Midway turn 1 with Infantry and Artillery. Attack American Fleet around Hawaii with 3 Fighters, 3 Tactical Bombers, 2 Bombers, and 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine on J1. Turn 2 attack Hawaii with 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 3 Fighters and 3 Tactical Bombers. If any Destroyer or Submarine survived the turn 1 Assault on the sea zone around Hawaii they can help defend the fleet from the scrambling aircraft at Hawaii, or defend any American Assault on U.S. 2. There should be 4 Aircraft Carriers with planes and 0-3 support craft (Destroyers and Submarines). This should be more than enough to hold off American attack for a few turns. If there are any losses on the aircraft on any of the battles fly new planes to land on the Aircraft Carriers in the non-combat movement phase. The rest of the Japanese fleet, 2 transports, 2 Battleships, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine can take Philippines turn 1 and can take Malaya turn 2. It can move on to capture the islands on turn 3 and later. Once the Philippines are taken, planes can be flown from China to cover the fleet at an airbase. The Japanese have enough fleet to match the British, Anzac and the Americans for at least a few turns. Japan does not have enough resources to fight China too while this is happening. So the Chinese will start producing 18 + income a turn and dominate the mainland. But this is the strategic problem Japan has always had. It has the initiative and not enough resources. IF you have to choose which Ally gets more money, choose the Chinese, as they cant leave China (except for Hong Kong and Burma).
All I ever see the Japanese do is build for a few turn or two, attack China turn 1 and 2, and then fight a traditional war against the DEI and try to hold on…