Japan Tactic to help hold off america



  • In our games we generally try to always have a transport available in sz 6 in order to shoot over to the Aleutian Islands or Alaska.  Not so much for monetary gain but it makes america go get it in order to to keep one of the NO’s.  Whatever transports go down, without navy to support, get taken out by a sub from japan.  If navy does support then they are three turns away from threatening anything again.  It has worked out good in games where most US money is spent in the Pacific and ultra effective when most money is spent in the Atlantic.



  • US can simply takes them back right away.



  • Simply is up for debate.  2 guys are put in Aleutian Islands means you have to take two loaded transports to take it back.  No planes can help form either Hawaii or Western US without a carrier available.  If two transports are sent then they get taken out with subs or destroyers from sz 6.  If they don’t get taken out then they are two moves away, 3 if you include the turn of taking it back, from being in a postion to threaten anything again.

    if a carrier is sent then you most likely need a destroyer to join so that the subs can’t get the carrier and transports and now you have a good part of your navy in awful position all at the cost of 13 ipcs for Japan.  Plus in order for it to not happen again america needs to spend resources to stop it other wise you just send another transport over and now your looking at 6 US turns to hold the NO.  It sound pretty harmless until it starts happening to you then all you can say is WTF.



  • I like to keep the starting Mech Inf in WUS to be able to hit Alaska with air if needed.

    If Japan is dropping troops in the Aleutian islands, they aren’t in Russia, China, or India.  Could be a diversionary strategy, but I don’t see that it applies very often.

    If Japan builds transports at Tokyo, most of their fleet is there or its dead; and therefore most of its fleet is not defending the DEI/Philippines.  Again, ripe for ANZAC/US to take some DEI back.



  • Too add to that.  Planes or bombers can’t even get there from Hawaii.  You would have to have planes in Western US and then bring a carrier to land on in order for them to participate.  Bombers would have to be in Western US or Midway in order for them to participate.



  • @elevenjerk:

    Too add to that. � Planes or bombers can’t even get there from Hawaii. � You would have to have planes in Western US and then bring a carrier to land on in order for them to participate. � Bombers would have to be in Western US or Midway in order for them to participate.

    Not talking about Aleutians, talking about Alaska.  Planes can land in Canada if need be after the attack on Alaska.  If Japan wants to drop guys in the Aleutians and lost a transport, then the US is happy to lose one NO.  Are the Aleutians even part of a National Objective?



  • If Japan builds transports at Tokyo, most of their fleet is there or its dead; and therefore most of its fleet is not defending the DEI/Philippines.  Again, ripe for ANZAC/US to take some DEI back.

    Don’t need most of your fleet there.  Just need a destroyer in sz 16 with another couple destroyers and subs in sz 6.  Unless america goes all in on sz 16 then you just hold that sz to block us from getting to sz 6.  All while tossing a few guys at the Aleutian Islands making America focus on that.  The bulk of the Japan navy is at the Islands and can easily withstand anything from Anzac.

    Plus US has to build a lot of transports in the pacific to fight for the Aleutian Islands and try to collect the DEI’s whenever they lose every transport that gets sent to take back the islands.

    Yes the islands are part of a national objective.  5 IPC per turn they controll Hawaii, Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Line Islands, and Johnston Islands.



  • Planes can land in Canada if need be after the attack on Alaska

    Once again more resources for america to have protecting something so far away from where the main action and money for Japan is located.  Its not an end all strategy, it is merely an annoying diversion that has little effect on what Japan does overall but affects america greatly due to the distance from anything important and the amout of moves it takes to recover from it.



  • If its only worth 5 IPCs and Japan loses a Transport, then the US hardly has to fight for it.

    Japan can only block combat movement, so the US can kill your Destroyers with air from Hawaii and then move a fleet to Japan SZ (and have air land on the carrier after it moves in non-combat).  This of course, is if Japan cannot destroy the US fleet outright.

    It could be a good move if the US’ fleet is down at Queensland and does not have much to fight Japan in the North.

    Personally though, Japan can not compete with a determined US unless they control Asia and the DEI.  To do that, their resources need to be there, not lost in the Aleutians.



  • That is all true.  Once again it is not the fight to get it back.  Its the diversion.  If US only sends transports they are gone by a Japanese sub.  Japan loses a transport  2 guys and a sub…19 ipc.  US loses 2 transports, effectively loses 2 inf and 2 art since they won’t be back for another 2 turns and has to repurchase the transports if they want to threaten anything again…42 ipcs.  Plus if they sent a destroyer or a sub to get the Japan sub then they lose that unit for 2 additional turns



  • gotta go for an hour or so.  Love the conversation, hopefully you will still be here when I get back:)


  • '12

    Japan probably doesn’t even need to cover SZ6 in this situation.  With the Hainan Naval base, you have your fleet down there to cover the DEI and threaten India.  If the US moves on SZ6 then you send up just what is needed to wipe them out.



  • @Eggman:

    Japan probably doesn’t even need to cover SZ6 in this situation.  With the Hainan Naval base, you have your fleet down there to cover the DEI and threaten India.  If the US moves on SZ6 then you send up just what is needed to wipe them out.

    Unless ANZAC or the US can block, but all true.

    If the Japanese took the Aleutians I would not bother fighting for it, but I would move a couple mechs/Inf to Alaska or Canada.  If Japan has its fleet in the south, than the US could go take the Aleutians if they wanted without fear of losing their fleet.  I see this as a mostly lose-lose for Japan.  In a face to face game this could be a psychological issue, especially if Japan talks some crap.



  • All the US needs is a strat bomber a a transport or 2, since aleutians are close to WUS, it really does not hurt him to send units to go after them.  Economically, US can afford a trade war in aluetian a lot better than japan can.



  • @ghr2:

    All the US needs is a strat bomber a a transport or 2, since aleutians are close to WUS, it really does not hurt him to send units to go after them.  Economically, US can afford a trade war in aluetian a lot better than japan can.

    True, but if Japan is large enough that they make 70 IPC’s/turn then the US is fighting over small potatoes when they need to be getting DEI/Phil/anything else back.



  • By the time japan is 70 ipc plus, the US already has a giant armada in queens or Caroline contesting the islands already.  And has the economy to keep sending units down there while simultaneously reclaiming aleutian.



  • @ghr2:

    By the time japan is 70 ipc plus, the US already has a giant armada in queens or Caroline contesting the islands already.  And has the economy to keep sending units down there while simultaneously reclaiming aleutian.

    Could be but it depends on where Japan’s fleet and airforce is.  It is very ‘cat and mouse’ if both fleets can annihilate the other if they get in range/are not blocked.



  • All the US needs is a strat bomber a a transport or 2, since aleutians are close to WUS, it really does not hurt him to send units to go after them.  Economically, US can afford a trade war in aluetian a lot better than japan can.

    A strat bomber in Western US.  Thats 24 ipcs just sitting there doing nothing other than covering the islands.  Is that really where america want to spend their money?

    It doesn’t necesssarily have to be a trade war.  even if it only happens once, Japan wins by a lot if US only sends transports.  If the us sends navy to protect the transports they lose 3 turns essentially which is huge for Japan.

    By the time japan is 70 ipc plus, the US already has a giant armada in queens or Caroline contesting the islands already.  And has the economy to keep sending units down there while simultaneously reclaiming aleutian.

    Japan can be at just under 70 ipcs on turn 4.  US can only place 3 units a turn in Western US for the first 3 turns.  Hardly enough to have a giant armada and definately not enough to have them in Carolines unless they bring the Europe navy over in which case Germany takes over the world.

    True, but if Japan is large enough that they make 70 IPC’s/turn then the US is fighting over small potatoes when they need to be getting DEI/Phil/anything else back.

    So you would accept only making 67 a turn, assuming that US took Brazil, to try to combat a 70 ipc Japan?

    Once again you can’t accept this as a strategy but I guarantee if you play against the allies and they don’t prepare for this (and who does?) it will be a huge thorn in the side of america and causes huge problems.

    Lets say on turn 4 america moves to the Carolines and takes it with 2 or 3 transports.  No transports available in hawaii or the Western US.  You sneak a guy to the islands.  That is very frustrating!!!

    The resources required to protect that start to add up.  Who wants to buy a loaded transport every turn with US and keep two strat bombers in the Western US just to stop a 13 ipc move by Japan.



  • If the Japanese took the Aleutians I would not bother fighting for it, but I would move a couple mechs/Inf to Alaska or Canada.  If Japan has its fleet in the south, than the US could go take the Aleutians if they wanted without fear of losing their fleet.

    That would be perfect for Japan. You only make 67 ipcs.  The mech and inf in alaska do nothing since you have to have transports to get to the islands and thats 6 to 8 ipcs doing nothing.

    They take their fleet to the islands, thats fine as well since they are 2 moves away from getting back to Hawaii to pose a threat.  Japan just blocks sz 7 so they can’t get to the capital.



  • @elevenjerk:

    If the Japanese took the Aleutians I would not bother fighting for it, but I would move a couple mechs/Inf to Alaska or Canada.  If Japan has its fleet in the south, than the US could go take the Aleutians if they wanted without fear of losing their fleet.

    That would be perfect for Japan. You only make 67 ipcs.  The mech and inf in alaska do nothing since you have to have transports to get to the islands and thats 6 to 8 ipcs doing nothing.

    They take their fleet to the islands, thats fine as well since they are 2 moves away from getting back to Hawaii to pose a threat.  Japan just blocks sz 7 so they can’t get to the capital.

    Well, with Japan putting troops in the Aleutians, they aren’t putting them in Asia, making things easier on India/China/ANZAC and the US.

    How do the US lose 3 turns if they send their whole fleet to the Aleutians?  They can hit Japan from there, Hawaii, and/or Carolines depending where they are.  You say you can block them, but you only block combat movement, they can send planes/bombers to his the Japan SZ and then Noncombat their fleet there (again, depending on what Japan has to counter with).

    I don’t think it is a terrible move, but typically I never have enough Japanese land units in Asia to beat both China and India (and Russia if they attack me turn 2 or later).



  • Well, with Japan putting troops in the Aleutians, they aren’t putting them in Asia, making things easier on India/China/ANZAC and the US

    We are talking about 2 inf.  Well worth the headache for US

    How do the US lose 3 turns if they send their whole fleet to the Aleutians?  They can hit Japan from there, Hawaii, and/or Carolines depending where they are

    1 turn to take the islands back, 2 turns to get back to Hawaii because it is 3 spots away.

    You say you can block them, but you only block combat movement, they can send planes/bombers to his the Japan SZ and then Noncombat their fleet there (again, depending on what Japan has to counter with).

    The block allows you to not have your capital threatened.  If us wants to move the navy into sz 6 thats fine since most of my japan navy will be placed in the Phillipines if US decides to move the whole navy over there.  China is mostly gone by turn 4 and with 8 or so transports in the south the UK will be mostly in turtle mode with very little offensive available to them.  If they have spent their money on offensive units than it makes it even easier to take calcutta and US can hang out in sz 6 all they want.  I just place guys in the capital to counter anything us can bring with the limited transports available.  If they have lots of transports they don’t have lots of navy.  Also by turn 5 the US can’t possible have that much stuff to threaten unless they bring Europe resources over.

    typically I never have enough Japanese land units in Asia to beat both China and India (and Russia if they attack me turn 2 or later).

    If russia attacks turn 2 then you could easily wipe them out.  I would actually want them to do that.



  • @elevenjerk:

    Well, with Japan putting troops in the Aleutians, they aren’t putting them in Asia, making things easier on India/China/ANZAC and the US

    We are talking about 2 inf.  Well worth the headache for US

    How do the US lose 3 turns if they send their whole fleet to the Aleutians?  They can hit Japan from there, Hawaii, and/or Carolines depending where they are

    1 turn to take the islands back, 2 turns to get back to Hawaii because it is 3 spots away.

    You say you can block them, but you only block combat movement, they can send planes/bombers to his the Japan SZ and then Noncombat their fleet there (again, depending on what Japan has to counter with).

    The block allows you to not have your capital threatened.  If us wants to move the navy into sz 6 thats fine since most of my japan navy will be placed in the Phillipines if US decides to move the whole navy over there.  China is mostly gone by turn 4 and with 8 or so transports in the south the UK will be mostly in turtle mode with very little offensive available to them.  If they have spent their money on offensive units than it makes it even easier to take calcutta and US can hang out in sz 6 all they want.  I just place guys in the capital to counter anything us can bring with the limited transports available.  If they have lots of transports they don’t have lots of navy.  Also by turn 5 the US can’t possible have that much stuff to threaten unless they bring Europe resources over.

    typically I never have enough Japanese land units in Asia to beat both China and India (and Russia if they attack me turn 2 or later).

    If russia attacks turn 2 then you could easily wipe them out.  I would actually want them to do that.

    You cannot attack everywhere-  China can be tough to take if you don’t commit serious troops to Asia;  8 transports?  How are they still alive?  Isn’t ANZAC/India/US hitting any undefended ones?  I’ve won and lost as both sides and never seen more than about 5-6 transports.  You have to be aggressive as the Allies against Japan.  If you left significant troops in Manchuria to guard against Japan then you aren’t taking China out in 4 turns.

    The US doesn’t have to take Japan, just convoy them, and/or take Korea/Manchuria, perhaps with russian help.



  • This is all based off a J4 attack.

    J1  3 tt 1 art.  Collect 42 in most cases taking Siberia, Far East, and the standard China territories.

    J2  2 tt 2 Inf (you have 2 left over from taking the rest out to Carolines with your initial 3 tt purchase)  4 art.  6 left to spend.

    that alone is 8 transports after turn 2.

    China can be tough to take if you don’t commit serious troops to Asia

    I didn’t say you take china out but you can close the road down and keep them at bay for a few turns pretty easy with what you have.

    If you left significant troops in Manchuria to guard against Japan then you aren’t taking China out in 4 turns

    Im not leaving troops in Manchuria.  If Russia wants to break the pact early, great, I take them out.  I keep guys in korea for the counter if they choose to do so.  If russia wants to put more than 6 inf in Amur, I break the pact and wipe them out and things may change a bit after that.  It is very easy to keep planes in range for that while just focusing on china.

    You have to be aggressive as the Allies against Japan

    US 4 is the first time they can do anything so its not really a consideration.

    Isn’t ANZAC/India/US hitting any undefended ones?

    US can’t do anything. If the UK/Anzac are able to take out maybe 1 unprotected transort to start the war and keep US out of the war till turn 4 no matter what, great.  Japan can take the islands even earlier along with kwantung and still collect the 10 ipc FIC bonus until the end of J3.



  • How does japan make 70 by turn 4 with out going to war by turn 2 or 3?  If the US is only making 3 out of western for 3 turns, japan would have to of waited untill j4 to attack.  Which means india/anzac are huge and dont require that much American aid right away.



  • US can also build planes out of central/eastern and land on carrier that came out of western after they move to hawaii.

    Bombers sitting in West US is a perfect place, they can go to queens, threaten sz 6, help reclaim aleutian, or move all the way to london/gib all in 1 turn.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 14
  • 7
  • 4
  • 4
  • 19
  • 65
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

58
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts