UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy



  • SUD:

    Its irrelevant that the US can take Panama back. Its interesting that the US would divert a trans 2 inf and a plane to do so, since the whole point of the Jap attack is to pull US resources out of Europe. So a Jap attack on Panama is having the ideal result in this case.

    If the UK builds an AC on turn 1, the US fighters are committed to fly to it and can do nothing in the Pacific theatre or else the German airforce will kill the AC with ease. At this point the Allied assault into Europe would stall for 1 maybe 2 turns. Against a good Axis player you have just lost the game. So by attacking Alaska, and you responding as you said you would will cost you the game.

    The optimal response to the tired shuck-shuck strategy is for Japan to shuck-shuck into Alaska, and move its Airforce to Western Europe or Canada. The US will be tied up, and all the shuck shuck transports become wasted. The UK is at low teens income and effectively out of the game. Russia is caught in a 2 front war which it will eventually lose.

    Japan can build an IC in Alaska, to build 2 tanks per turn and ship 4 to 6 inf per turn into Alaska while still pumping a tank and 4 inf into Asia. That’s enough for Asia because the only Allied player in Asia is Russia. The US will not be able to hard pressed to destroy the invading Jap forces. Any US ships lauched into the Pacific will be sunk by the Jap airforce in Western Canada. A force of 8+Jap infantry some tanks will take Western canada on J3. The US has to be careful, if it attacks Western Canada, it still needs to park enough forces in Western US to avoid a Japanese amphibious assault from Alaska to Western US. Most US players are not used to being invaded, and I think you would be surprised how hard the Japanese will hit you.

    The Allied shuck-shuck strategy is flawed because it is so predicable, and easy to counter if the Axis works together. Germany sinks the AC on G2, and builds a fighter every other turn. Japan builds a fighter every turn and sends all its airforce to Western Canada/Europe. No allied ship in range goes unattacked. The Allied shuck-shuck stalls. Asia is now Axis dominated, and Germany has most of Africa. The allies are in dire straits because the UK has no IPCs, and America has no transports. Capital ships are expensive, and irrelevant. If the axis sinks all the transports, the allies are dead. Sorry I’m rambling.



  • Yes. If Japan was to land into Panama or Alaska if would definately tie up some of USA’s resources. This would probably delay the invasion 1 or 2 turns as USA now has to protect WUSA. Also what is this “shuck-shuck”? I know I have been playing A&A for many years but I have never come across that term before.



  • Zeros strategy is a good idea. This is an example of where the USA might regret having moved their whole fleet to (and built most of their units in) Eastern USA. In my experience, USA players often do freak out when Axis troops land on North America, and the attack from Western Canada to North Sea SZ would come as a shock to many players. Even if it only happened once, a combined Axis airstrike on UK SZ with the remaining airforces combining in Western Europe, could set the Western Allies back just long enough for you to pinch USSR–or possibly even invade UK… 😁 ?

    Ozone27



  • Shuck Shuck is the name I’ve seen given for the strategy of having two sets of transports and cycling them back and forth to make a continuous stream of landings across come body of water. Usually its from East US to somewhere in Africa or Europe.

    I don’t know why its called shuck shuck.



  • I call it “the conveyer belt.”



  • Yeah, Conveyor belt does sound better.



  • yes, it has a good ring to it 😄



  • wow i didn’t feel like reading all these……i like cookies 😄



  • Yeah I am going to have to agree with SUD on this one. Always keep the threat alive with Japan but doing it is completely a different story.



  • I agree that T1 is too early, but I think the strategy could work well once you can devote 4 INF and a Carrier to the battle, that is T2-3–then you’d have yourself a party! Now whatever the US puts in the water in the Pacific gets sunk by the planes, USA West is in immediate danger of invasion (albeit breifly) and USA must make some difficult choices: leave the Japanese where they are and watch them get stronger and stronger, build a bunch of ARM in West USA to invade, or temporarily abandon the steady buildup of troops to Europe/Africa to march over and respond to the new threat! The only other way would be to use the fleet to sink the Japanese fleet and cut off the Alaskans–except WHOOPS!: the whole fleet is in the Atlantic! Hafta build another one!

    Japan moves before USA, so a steady stream of 2-3 INF every turn would reapidly become a major thorn in the Western Allies side. If Japan becomes strong enough to march into Western Canada, the Western Allies could respond–by moving much-needed troops from Europe to help. And Japan can just back them up next turn with more.

    A TR bridge could easily develop without compromising Asia, because returning TRs from Alaska could still “bridge” over troops from Japan before departing again next turn laden with more future Alaskans!

    The strategy is an eventual loser, of course because the Allies will eventually be able to build up a force to knock you off the continent and Japan can never devote enough resources to trying to stay there to win. But until then Japan has served its purpose well–that is 1.) Harming USSR and 2.) Taking the pressure off Germany from the West. I think this idea is actually a very good one…

    Just my $0.02…

    Ozone27



  • Besides who would want to T1 Alaska? I mean there are so many more territories in the Asia Mainland that are better to take. I think that a invasion of Alaska should take place until at least T2, more likely T3 or even T4 depending on the “conveyor belt.”



  • Still, 4 infantry make a huge difference in Asia. and then sending two to four out each turn does compromise asian supremecy. Japan has to be threatening russia by turn 4. Taking Alaska is something you can do if you have complexes in Asia, some transports and infantry hanging around on the islands or japan itself.



  • Agreed. Japan shouldn’t even bother taking Alaska until conquest of Asia is assured. However, in this scenario the Axis are more concerned about invading Britian and waging economic warefare on the nation, and not so much being able to take the war to the Russia homeland.



  • whoa, i forgot the name of the subject itself!

    sorry!


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 27
  • 20
  • 12
  • 8
  • 53
  • 10
  • 6
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

56
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts