What to do with W. Canada infantry?


  • Agent Smith, you are correct, Alaska is only 2ipc :oops:

    Secondly, I said I would send a couple of infantry. I guess I should have made it clear that I would be certain to send two. Two infantry requires the US to commit more to retake Alaska. The main purpose of this is to slow down the US help to Europe/Africa; or have the Alaska ipcs. Of course, everyone is correct in saying that Japan needs every inf. it can get in Asia, I agree with this. A strong push by Japan into N. America is doomed to failure.

    Regarding the use of a bomber as a deterent, will you still attack if I send a capital ship or two with the transport?

    I will reinforce Alaska as UK to make it more difficult for the Japanese to take it, let them send a significant force there and disrupt their flow to Asia. As the UK player I don’t want the US supplies to be disrupted in a counter attack, even with a few infantry for one turn while the US deals with Alaska. As long as the US infantry keeps flowing to Europe or Africa, the Axis is unlikely to win, but if the US infantry go elsewhere the Axis stand a better chance of victory.

    In reinforcing Alaska as the UK, I am trying to help my allies.


  • Regarding the use of a bomber as a deterent, will you still attack if I send a capital ship or two with the transport?

    Of course not but I might roll a few tech dice to see what happens, but who cares I love to see Jap capital ships off Alaska instead of the RedSz/FICSz. I might also be tempted to sneak a few bombers into Novo to strike at any unescorted trannies in the JapSz/FICSz. So in the end going for Alaska will either prevent you from threatening Africa or make it possible to easy kill a trannie. Both of these are good for the Allies both American and Britian.

    Secondly, I said I would send a couple of infantry. I guess I should have made it clear that I would be certain to send two. Two infantry requires the US to commit more to retake Alaska. The main purpose of this is to slow down the US help to Europe/Africa; or have the Alaska ipcs.

    And I will let the Japs hold it for a turn, but bare in mind the US usually produces 32-34 ipcs which is either 9inf arm or 8inf 2arm, and either way the US will be producing more units than they can transport with 5 transports, so while their is a slow down it isn’t much, and usually not much more than a tank. After the grace turn I let Japan hold Alaska I will take it back with the extra pieces I’ve built up say 2inf 2arm or whatever it may be. If they pull the guys back to Manch I blitz the territory and there is little advantage gained by going to Alaska. Ultimately the US has too much money and because of this can afford to give up Alaska, especially if it slows down the Japs in Asia/Africa where I need time to get set up to defend against them.


  • movin to alaska to defend is best its closer and will do a lot in some of the past games i played…then again i was playin with my family and my brother loves alaska so he tries to take it 24/7….lol


  • I love to see Jap capital ships off Alaska instead of the RedSz/FICSz.

    Generally, I will split up my Navy once the US is gone from the Pacific. I will leave a capital ship with the trannys off Japan in case one of the allies gets ideas about bombers from Novo. But if no bombers or fighters are in range then I can move it to Alaska with the one transport.

    Again, the main reason to take Alaska as Japan is to disrupt the US supply lines. Sure, you are experienced enough to handle this situation, but most players will not take an optimal approach when they retake Alaska. If I am playing the UK, I will send the W. Canada infantry there so that perhaps the US player won’t have to retake it.

    I do believe that unless you are playing with a bid, the axis must do everything they can to disrupt the play of the Allies or they will lose because the Allies have to much money and will win perhaps 90% of the games. Against Allied players who understand this, the Axis players can’t simply build Karelia and push into Asia with Japan if they want any chance to win.


  • I agree with AgentSmith entirely, unless the US player is inexperienced, any deployment of Japanese forces into (what I would term) ‘sideshows’ does more harm to the Axis than the Allies. It gives the Allies time to build up. With only two J.Transports on turn 1 I would be very reluctant to waste one for just $2 in Alaska when I could use it to begin putting pressure on the Soviets/re-take Manchuria etc. Japan attacking the USSR helps win the war for the Axis. Putting any effort into what is, at best, a diversion, just weakens any assault on the USSR from the East.
    As for sending capital ships to help invade Alaska, :roll: that really is a waste. If I play J. I need every battleship shot and aircraft to secure my initial advance across Asia.
    From this point of view, the only side which gains anything from supposedly ‘disrupting the other’ is the Allies. If I faced a player who attacked Alaska like this I would leave him there. Only if he looks like threatening Western USA would I even begin to start paying attention. The war is won taking Tokyo or Berlin, not checking Japanese interests in the Arctic.


  • Yep, but as the Japanese I will occasionally sneak up to Alaska to take it if and when its undefended and when I have an extra guy for example 7inf arm and 5 transports to move them. Obviously I’m going to have some waste so why not get a little something out of it.


  • In my experience, a big push into Europe by the US is preceeded by a large stack of inf/arm moving from W-US to W-Can to the connected E-Can SZ. With this march of units, no Japanese player has seen it as anything close to feasible to take Alaska, I’d only take it back moments later with minimal loss of units or time. Then of course, I’ve been known to miss a thing or two.


  • I’d only take it back moments later with minimal loss of units or time.

    Ah, but the time is not necessarily minimal and the loss of units isn’t as important as where they are not (in Karelia).

    Say I have two inf in Alaska and you have 12 inf in W. Canada. Now you decide to take it back, what do you attack with? Lets say you want to be absolutely certain you will take it so you send 6 inf plus a fighter that you have available. Ok, now one turn later, you only have 6 inf to ship to Russia instead of 12 as the other 6 (or however many survived is in Alaska).

    If I have intended to hit Karelia HARD as Germany 3 turns from this, the Allies will be 6 inf. less than before. Meanwhile as Japan, I am only down 2 inf. in Novo so Russia has less discresionary force available for a counterattack at Karelia.

    This may mean that Germany keeps Karelia for a turn as opposed to losing it right away (helpful for an economic victory). Or this may mean that the allies have less forces available to send to Moscow and therefore Japan can take it where otherwise these 6 inf could have kept Moscow in the hands of the allies. But the best outcome for the Axis is if this enables Germany to take Karelia when they wouldn’t have otherwise and therefore the US/UK can’t send any reinforcements to Moscow, enabling Japan to take Moscow four turns from taking Alaska. Depends on how things play out.


  • @221B:

    I’d only take it back moments later with minimal loss of units or time.

    Ah, but the time is not necessarily minimal and the loss of units isn’t as important as where they are not (in Karelia).

    Say I have two inf in Alaska and you have 12 inf in W. Canada. Now you decide to take it back, what do you attack with? Lets say you want to be absolutely certain you will take it so you send 6 inf plus a fighter that you have available. Ok, now one turn later, you only have 6 inf to ship to Russia instead of 12 as the other 6 (or however many survived is in Alaska).

    But i don’t have to be absoluety certain. As long as my forces keep passing by, not allowing Japan any step further, i can attack (to stick tothe example) with 4 Inf (and whatever support that can reach and still go where i want it). That loses some units, but has a more than 50% chance of winning. (actually, you have about the same odds of not hitting in the first round and any loss hurts the defender much more).
    So, you might even consider to attack with 3 Inf only, to kill one unit of Japan, and repeat it the next turn with 2 Inf.
    So, i would definitly use less than 6 Inf to counter attack.


  • I’m surprised no one has mentioned this, but Alaska could be used as a staging ground for bombing raids on the U.S. With heavy bombers, this can cripple American production, taking them completely out of the war. I would attack on Japan’s second turn, as the largest defensive force (that’s makes sense) that can be there are 3 US Infantry (the original one plus two transported from the Western US), a British Infantry, a British Armor, and an American fighter. Japan could attack this force with eight amphibiously assaulting infantry with double battleship support and two aircraft carried fighters. If the US player has not built multiple transports off the West US as well as infantry in the West US, along with positioning the original East US armor into the West US, then Alaska can not be reclaimed during the US’s second turn. It forces the US to commit the entire second round’s purchases to liberate Alaska, in the form of armor seacraft, aircraft, etc. since the Japanese could then reinforce Alaska if it chooses on its third turn and fly its bomber there. If a large American ground force is built to retake Alaska, simply abandon it and push to Midway or Hawaii. The key is to take a position from which bombimg raids can be made on the US. I find that Asia usually takes care of itself rather quickly (though I must mention that we play with an extensive set of house rules that render many of the stategies posted at this site illegal in our games; for example, Soviet forces are not allowed to enter non-Soviet Asian territories at any point. This frees the Japanese player from worrying about Soviet reinforcements to Allied positions, in India for example, or a Soviet advancement into Manchuria).


  • I’m surprised no one has mentioned this, but Alaska could be used as a staging ground for bombing raids on the U.S. With heavy bombers, this can cripple American production, taking them completely out of the war.

    Yes and this is the only time it is a good idea to go all in to Alaska. However, you’re still likely to see the Americans counter heavy just to prevent this. That is to say once you get Heavy Bombers they will likely retake Alaska at whatever cost so this does not happen, but first you must have heavies or else you are wasting production in Alaska. As America I would welcome you going to Alaska all in on J2 as it would mean Russia could probably build a defense in Yakut that might not ever be breached see armor heavy purchases. If this happens Japan is forced to dump in Kwan which takes an ungodly long time. So are you willing to goto Alaska if it means you must also delay yourself in Kwan.


  • If you have heavy bombers, I would base them in Hawaii instead of Alaska. You can still Strat bomb W. USA but its much harder for the US to do anything about it.


  • F_aulk wrote:

    But i don’t have to be absoluety certain.

    True. But that is a more optimal play by the Allies against this move by the axis. As the axis greatly lags the allies in material production, its important to make the allies play less efficiently with their materials. That’s the main purpose why I would consider taking a weakly defended Alaska with a small Japanese force. This decision is helped if you know your opponent and how they play.


  • The Soviets completely disregard the Yakut and the Soviet Far East in our games as another house rule is that the only Soviet territories the Japanese are allowed to take are these two territories. This obviously prevents the Japanese from sending forces across Asia onto Russia. This rule was incorporated because it is completely unrealistic. Therefore, the best way for the Japanese to help the Germans is through bombing raids on the US and Russia. Because of this, the Japanese usually have taken all of the territories they are allowed to (the others are China, Sinkiang, India, Australia and New Zealand) within four turns. They then Weapons Develop until Heavy Bombers and Long Range Aircraft are attained. The Japanese then purchase bomber fleets to perform the raids.


  • allo,
    while this might make more historical sense, it’s only another hurdle for an aching Axis to overcome. Personally, I’d hate to be the Japanese player destined to fight an air war, or maybe just as bad, the German partner facing a single front Russia.


  • Hi,

    Nice to see so many avid A&A players goin at it! I have played every country numerous times, and even sunk as low as playing the game vs. myself. Not very fun, but if you are meticulous enough, and strategize each country with a seperate mind, you can develop an overwhelming understanding of the game. Although you could argue that strategy applied against your own isnt very applicable, if you are an experienced player, you know what is best for each country’s turn. Japan’s first move is obviously a re-enactment of Pearl Harbor, afterwhich Japan controls the Pacific more or less. As long as Japan controls the Pacific, and keeps spanking any newly bought and placed ships, America remains a stockpiler. Using transports to flood the Soviet Far East and India all the while also means that the lone infantry in Western Canada can do what he wants to. To not use the advantage of striking first with your ships in greater numbers is fatal. Ignore Alaska untill later in the game (in which case you only take it as a diversion or an annoyance) if you are Japan.


  • east canada sea zone conects to west canada so can be pick up from there and transported to europe any time if you have a transport spare. So i would pick it up from there 1st or 2nd move , usa can defend it.


  • IMO picking them up is not a priority. The only or best use of these troops would be in Africa, and so picking up the tank is paramount, but if Africa is already weak they may not even be needed and so become unecessary.


  • If you move it to E.Canada, then drop it off at Europe is a great choice. This will nail Germany to the wall. :evil:


  • @AgentSmith:

    If the Japs go all out for Alaska the Americans will be slowed down, but only slightly,

    Now THAT is an understatement!

    Slightly?
    Hell ONE build of INF would put 13 US INF to face the paltry Japan force in Alaska.  Invite Japan to come get a piece of that, even with their BB’s, carrier AF, and 2-3 transports full of troops.

    Japan loses, 2 moves back to Japan to fill up their transports again, then 2 more back to Western.

    So USA loses ONE build that does not go to Germany:  Japan loses its initial invasion forces plus FOUR moves.


  • Clarification:

    When I am playing the US, they typically are UP 3 IPC by the end of US3; about the earliest Japan will feel they have enough transports to risk an Alaska attack.  Anything before then and they can only get a few forces there:  easy counterstrike to get them out; and very expensive forces (the transports plus escorts) tied up in a trivial battle that are critically needed elsewhere.

    The time may come when Japan may WANT to hit Alaska:  Sometimes I do in round 5 after I have been pouring forces into Asia non-stop for 4 rounds:  just to remind the US that I still exist as Japan, and to try to coax a few dollars away from European support (especially if I can land with enough that they do indeed do a full build in Western, leaving tranports unable to be re-loaded in the Atlantic 🙂  )

    Of course most of the time it is a feint:  the forces go back to Asia the next round (unless US ignores, then I go ahead and grab some IPC from Canada, take Hawaii, and poise some forces for Mexico/Panama.  That is almost certain to get US attention, and if not, I’ll take those, and then move on Cuba and Brazil too.  USA at 22 IPC’s by Round 8 if they ignore Japan after they hit Alaska in force.

    But as others have so emphatically posted:  in the first 4 rounds, Japan HAS to be grabbing territories in Asia and doing all it can to pull Russia forces off Germany, as well as taking IPC’s from UK to slow down naval production and transport loading.


  • You may not be aware but western canada connects to the eastern canada seas. The US hardly needs to even blink an eye by a round 4 assault as the gravy train is well under way. By round 3 US should have its transport crew set up, with some extra inf in western US. Each round thereafter they build in western US. This allows the western US defend against mexico, and since the troops go western U.S.->Western Can->Finland, alaska is defended against as well by troops that just happen to be walking by. Brutally effective really.


  • @aaFiendish:

    You may not be aware but western canada connects to the eastern canada seas.

    I have been playing with the “3rd Edition Rules” of Hasbro so long I forgot about the Labrador link to Western.

    Thank You for the reminder.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

15.8k
Users

37.3k
Topics

1.6m
Posts