J1 DOW and US Response



  • So I’ve been toying around with a J1 DOW with the intent to take Hawaii on J2.

    This is how the board looks for the US after Japan ends her turn:

    Japan:
    SZ6: 1 SS 2 DD 1 CR 1 BB 4 TT
    SZ25: 1 DD
    SZ26: 1 DD
    SZ31: 3 CV 3 Ftr 3 Tac 1 BB 1 CR 1 TT
    Japan: 1 Ftr 1 Bomber 6 Inf 2 Art 1 Arm
    Korea: 10 Inf
    Wake: 1 Inf 1 Art
    Marshall Islands: 1 Ftr 1 Tac 2 Bomber
    FIC: 2 Inf
    Hunan: 1 Inf
    Kwangtung: 2 Inf 1 Art
    Kwangsi: 6 Ftr 4 Tac
    Anhwe: 6 Inf 2 Art
    Chahar: 2 Inf 1 Art 1 Mech

    Yunnan is Chinese Held
    Hawaiian Aircraft did not scramble (3 Ftr, 3 Tac, 2 Bomber, 1 SS, 1 DD were sent)

    With that board laid out, how would you plan your US purchase on US1?  
    More importantly, would you reinforce Hawaii and send your outgunned fleet to its demise?
    Would you send everything possible to defend Hawaii?
    Would you try to block the Japanese landing by moving to Midway?
    Would you send ANZAC’s CR from NZ to SZ26?  What about all 3 Ftr?

    I’m fully aware of the impact that this creates on Japan economically, but assuming Hawaii goes well, I intend to purchase 2 Bombers on J2 and be able to have the 3 Bombers (1 Japan, 2 Marshall Islands) fly back from Wake, plus the 2 from Japan to the mainland to support the large Airforce already there.

    The intention is not to gain ground, but to use the current ground units as fodder to eliminate the larger stacks and/or artillery builds of the Chinese until I can get produced units onto the mainland.

    Assuming all goes well, I have the choice to either return all my TT to SZ6 on J3 and be able to land the 10 Inf from Korea on the mainland on J4 to turn China around OR leave aircraft in Hawaii and then proceed straight to ANZAC on J3.

    The entire premise of this is that by sinking the US fleet on J2 AND taking Hawaii, the US won’t be able to build enough of a force to reclaim Hawaii until round 4 or 5.  US2 would be a naval build to defend SF, US3 would be a mix of TT and supporting naval, US4 could be a landing depending on how empty Hawaii is, if not, the filling of TT with offensive units capable of taking Hawaii.

    With that in mind, being able to sack Sydney on J4 (trading aircraft for minimal ground units), Flip on J5 from produced units on J3 and J4, its entirely possible to win and have the US spend nearly all its income in the Pacific for 5+ rounds - which leaves the UK and Russia on islands in Europe until at the earliest probably Round 7 or 8 before the US can intervene at all.



  • Taking Hawaii is never a good idea.  You then pitch a 1 on 1 with the USA, and you will lose.  If I was USA, I would outproduce your defending navy and knock you out of the game.  Not only I’m I requiring you to stay at Hawaii, but I will eventually build enough fleet to destroy your Navy with a 1 turn distance from the west coast.

    I would build USA subs and carriers with planes till I had enough to waste you, I always pull the fighters off Hawaii to regroup on carriers.  I would save Anzacs income and build a carrier or 2 to make life hell on japan with the money islands.

    You can’t split your navy and expect to win against USA.  It’s never gone right for the Japanese player in my experiences.



  • Give me a sec to think on this.



  • J1 + no real attacks in the south = anzac/india get large and in charge.  While the US works to out build you in the pac.  Yes he will lose hawaii, but japan would only be making mid low mid 30s turn 1 and maybe 40 turn 2, while the US makes 77-79 turn 1 and 66 turn 2.  India will be making in the 20s as well as anzac, while china will be making mid teens maybe go down to around 10 or 11 at the lowest until you exert some force on them.  By the end of US turn 3, if his pacific is not stronger than yours or at least close to equal, he is clearly playing this wrong.  When japan moves out to head south, US can pounce back to hawaii and block if needed.  Anzac’s position can lead to some strong turtling/blocking to buy time for the US to gain strength/position, so in the chance he falls, the US will be in position to really screw with the imperial navy and make it hard for him to secure the last vc without giving aussie back to the allies.  To retake hawaii or conquer india while also holding queensland is insanely hard for Japan if the US throws his strength against him.

    As long as the US starts working on atlantic buys by turn 4 or 5, there is no real threat of a german win since the UK can help russia via persia IC to delay him.  And america will have a large force moving out turn 6 or 7 to prevent the final vc loss.  Depending on the situation of how scary Japan is vc wise or economic wise, the US might start spending in the Atlantic earlier or later, so its not concrete.



  • I’m trying to play this out “generally” on TripleA, so I was hoping for some specific input.

    I’m well aware that UK should be getting large, which I am accepting on the premise that I have multiple VC’s within range of my Major Complex and they are multiple turns from truly threatening any of them if I capture them.

    I would expect India to look to take 2 DEI for themselves and start mobilizing to get to Egypt and support Russia’s underbelly unless they need to try to retake Kwangtung to stop a Japanese VC win.

    I am also fully aware that the US can outproduce me and that economically I’m disadvantaged (said that from my OP) by not targeting DEI and China early.  Most of my purpose is to put Japan in a potential position to win, but the primary purpose is to keep the US spending in the Pacific beyond the first 2 rounds of play.

    Note, I don’t have to take ANZAC after Hawaii, I can return to Japan and pick up multiple Infantry and a few purchased Art and take Flip after Hawaii and stage myself to reclaim all the DEI by round 4-5.  India would not be happy with this if its economy gets halved after sending armor and mech towards Europe.

    However, if my intent is to put all the pressure on the US to spend in the Pacific for multiple turns, reversing course is not part of that plan.  I can even plan to return BACK to Hawaii with those Inf on Korea, further keeping the US considering its position in the Pacific.

    What I’m trying to see is what the Allied response from experienced players would be if Hawaii was seriously threatened on J2.  In particular would you move your starting fleet to Hawaii and reinforce it, and to what extent would the Allies reinforce it IE does ANZAC get involved or not?  Are the US Ftr scrambling to defend or all possible aircraft landing on Hawaii itself?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    well, in the old days of alpha 2, the germans wuold have a nice transport fleet they could park off gibraltar and force the US to split it’s naval build.  Does that help you?  (just cause it was an alpha 2 strat to set up taking London on G3 doesnt mean you cant do it in 2nd edition.  I just dont know the feasibility there.)

    You’d ahve to move FAST because once ANZAC, Russia/China and India get large, your VC win chances are prohibitively low, I would think.



  • @Spendo02:

    What I’m trying to see is what the Allied response from experienced players would be if Hawaii was seriously threatened on J2.  In particular would you move your starting fleet to Hawaii and reinforce it, and to what extent would the Allies reinforce it IE does ANZAC get involved or not?  Are the US Ftr scrambling to defend or all possible aircraft landing on Hawaii itself?

    From my point of view, and one I think many experienced players would agree on is…. Hawaii isn’t worth defending at the start of the game.  Why defend it on J2 when I can pull everything off of Hawaii to the west coast and build up my navy to crush Japan Navy in 2 turns?  By the time you hit Hawaii, the USA will have dumped most of their income into the Pacific.  I can’t really say specifics because of variables, but it would be most of my income into navy and aircraft.  Which will be close to even annihilation, when that happens, India and Anzac will have profited off of the money islands long enough to slap some navy of their own down.  Not good at all.

    Don’t think “what if they defend Hawaii”, no USA player is going to do that (whose experienced).  You gotta get those money islands, it’s the life blood of Japan.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I could see a strategy where taking Hawaii really early in the game would set Japan up for an Australian hit.  I guess the idea would be to keep the allied fleets split.  If ANZAC goes hardcore ground units, you’ve effectively neutralized them, else, you can keep the fleet split up a bit while you move an invasion force down then converge on Queensland/New Zealand (latter only if you see juicy targets there) and thus retreat from the US when they are too big to keep at bay.  That would give you 5 Victory Cities.

    I would assume at this point the US takes pearl back the same round you take new south wales, so you would remain at 5 VCs, but India should be about on it’s own at this point.  Now it’s just a race, right?  Can the US both go liberate NSW and hold Hawaii before India falls giving Japan 6 VC?

    (Warning:  Musings do not indicate endorsement, just thoughts to consider.)



  • I’ve always considered one of Japan’s strengths is having their defending fleet off the coast of China or the Carolines. Being 1-2 turns away from America means that you are always in a position to respond to the US’s naval buys because they can’t get them to the front lines as fast as you can just dump navy off of China or Japan.

    By trying to defend at Hawaii you have to build first, because if you wait for the US to buy and try to respond, anything the US purchases can simply hit your Hawaii fleet while you’re trying to build out of Japan. This means that even though you’re “setting the pace” with your buys, the US can simply lay back and decide how much to just dump into naval builds / transport / Atlantic and calculate exactly how much they need to purchase to wreck your fleet. It also means your fleet is directly within range of all of America’s bomber buys and the US can hit the sea zone with any number of planes if they wanted to land in Midway, Wake, or Johnston.

    I love the idea of taking Hawaii but doing it early is just strategic suicide for Japan as the US really has nothing to lose by dumping a ridiculous all Pacific naval on round 2 and 3. Japan, however, is trying to manage China, UK, ANZAC, and Russia on the other side of the ocean and can’t just dump 60 IPCs worth of boats down every turn.


  • 2017 '16 '13 '12

    With a toe to toe on the US, Japan will get overwhelmed.

    There is nothing wrong with a J1, but Japan can’t afford to go after an experienced US player.

    I would buy 5 submarines and 2 tactical bombers and move the Atlantic navy to 11.

    From that point, I have a 55% battle against the entire Japanese navy should it be parked in Hawaii (worth a shot since the goal is to wear Japan down). From that point, there is no way that Japan can keep up with me buying subs and planes to oust the Japanese navy.

    Russia would stack Amur and Anzaz / India would go expand to DEI.


  • 2017 '16 '13 '12

    @zanetheinsane:

    I’ve always considered one of Japan’s strengths is having their defending fleet off the coast of China or the Carolines. Being 1-2 turns away from America means that you are always in a position to respond to the US’s naval buys because they can’t get them to the front lines as fast as you can just dump navy off of China or Japan.

    By trying to defend at Hawaii you have to build first, because if you wait for the US to buy and try to respond, anything the US purchases can simply hit your Hawaii fleet while you’re trying to build out of Japan. This means that even though you’re “setting the pace” with your buys, the US can simply lay back and decide how much to just dump into naval builds / transport / Atlantic and calculate exactly how much they need to purchase to wreck your fleet. It also means your fleet is directly within range of all of America’s bomber buys and the US can hit the sea zone with any number of planes if they wanted to land in Midway, Wake, or Johnston.

    I love the idea of taking Hawaii but doing it early is just strategic suicide for Japan as the US really has nothing to lose by dumping a ridiculous all Pacific naval on round 2 and 3. Japan, however, is trying to manage China, UK, ANZAC, and Russia on the other side of the ocean and can’t just dump 60 IPCs worth of boats down every turn.

    Where would you find 60 IPCs to spend anyway? 😄


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    My musings were less about keeping Hawaii and more about using it as a staging ground to hit Australia after getting America to commit away from Europe.  Basically, draw the allies away from Germany and hope the Germans can push into Russia faster - or if the allies don’t respond, use it as a staging ground to cap a VC win (either way, using it to take out Australia is probably a win no matter what you do from that point on.)



  • @Cmdr:

    My musings were less about keeping Hawaii and more about using it as a staging ground to hit Australia after getting America to commit away from Europe.  Basically, draw the allies away from Germany and hope the Germans can push into Russia faster - or if the allies don’t respond, use it as a staging ground to cap a VC win (either way, using it to take out Australia is probably a win no matter what you do from that point on.)

    The problem with this though, is going south to Kwangsi/FIC is a much better staging point for attacks.  You can threaten India and ANZAC while getting money islands.  Hawaii offers none of these payouts except a turn 4 take on Sydney (or a dumb USA that doesn’t build in the Pacific and you can take San Fran, but we’re talking experienced players).

    A good USA player always commits to Japan first to get them under-control, so they can spend the rest of the time stopping Germany.  (I suppose a great USA player can do both at the same-time.)

    With that in mind, being able to sack Sydney on J4 (trading aircraft for minimal ground units), Flip on J5 from produced units on J3 and J4, its entirely possible to win and have the US spend nearly all its income in the Pacific for 5+ rounds - which leaves the UK and Russia on islands in Europe until at the earliest probably Round 7 or 8 before the US can intervene at all.

    They would not need to spend 5 rounds of income to stop Japan.



  • @Dark_Destroyer:

    With that in mind, being able to sack Sydney on J4 (trading aircraft for minimal ground units), Flip on J5 from produced units on J3 and J4, its entirely possible to win and have the US spend nearly all its income in the Pacific for 5+ rounds - which leaves the UK and Russia on islands in Europe until at the earliest probably Round 7 or 8 before the US can intervene at all.

    They would not need to spend 5 rounds of income to stop Japan.�

    Much of that assertion is based on play testing of the Allies moving to defend Hawaii in the first round.

    Obviously that changes if you withdraw because the only trade would be the starting fleet off Hawaii, which easily translates to a strong consolidated navy off of Western US.

    That is why I posed the question regarding what would be an Allied response to a J1 DOW that stages in SZ6 and paves the way to sack Honolulu on J2 as I was not sure if that would be an experienced US player’s response.
    EDIT
    Note my normal opponent generally responds to Japanese aggression in the Pacific with a 10 SS purchase in Western US the moment he can enter the war.  Its annoying to deal with on many levels.
    END EDIT

    Clearly a withdraw to San Francisco that includes a heavy Naval build (IE SS and Tac) changes the dynamic of the board.  My standard play has been to defend Hawaii at all costs which included Anzac’s involvement (to see what the board looks like) while purchasing US1 SS and Bombers.  I never considered the US option to give it up and consolidate - which appears to be a better and stronger play.

    I wouldn’t want to move the IJN to Hawaii facing over a half dozen subs, and Tac’s rolling at 4 and the bulk of the US Navy sitting off of Western US.  Trading some ships to have the US with no Ships is one thing - but to run a 55% chance battle to lose all ships is not viable.

    With the premise of the strategy to force the US to spend in the Pacific beyond the first two turns, I’d give this strategy a C+ or B- against an average player, but an F against an experienced one.

    I’m still a firm believer in taking and owning Flip and DEI while dealing with China as the primarily best strategy for Japan - I was just looking for an alternative to it that keeps the US actively investing in the Pacific that is beyond the “standard” buy TT, get a minor in SE Asia, take DEI, convoy India and subdue China.


  • 2017 '16 '13 '12

    @Spendo02:

    @Dark_Destroyer:

    With that in mind, being able to sack Sydney on J4 (trading aircraft for minimal ground units), Flip on J5 from produced units on J3 and J4, its entirely possible to win and have the US spend nearly all its income in the Pacific for 5+ rounds - which leaves the UK and Russia on islands in Europe until at the earliest probably Round 7 or 8 before the US can intervene at all.

    They would not need to spend 5 rounds of income to stop Japan.�

    Much of that assertion is based on play testing of the Allies moving to defend Hawaii in the first round.

    Obviously that changes if you withdraw because the only trade would be the starting fleet off Hawaii, which easily translates to a strong consolidated navy off of Western US.

    Clearly a withdraw to San Francisco that includes a heavy Naval build (IE SS and Tac) changes the dynamic of the board.  My standard play has been to defend Hawaii at all costs which included Anzac’s involvement (to see what the board looks like) while purchasing US1 SS and Bombers.  I never considered the US option to give it up and consolidate - which appears to be a better and stronger play.

    I wouldn’t want to move the IJN to Hawaii facing over a half dozen subs, and Tac’s rolling at 4 and the bulk of the US Navy sitting off of Western US.  Trading some ships to have the US with no Ships is one thing - but to run a 55% chance battle to lose all ships is not viable.

    With the premise of the strategy to force the US to spend in the Pacific beyond the first two turns, I’d give this strategy a C+ or B- against an average player, but an F against an experienced one.

    I’m still a firm believer in taking and owning Flip and DEI while dealing with China as the primarily best strategy for Japan - I was just looking for an alternative to it that keeps the US actively investing in the Pacific that is beyond the “standard” buy TT, get a minor in SE Asia, take DEI, convoy India and subdue China.

    Here you go!  😄



  • I never considered the US option to give it up and consolidate - which appears to be a better and stronger play.

    The ol’ bait and switch tactic, giving you Hawaii seems like a nice offering (bait), then USA sinks your navy into the deep blue (switch).  But I agree with your assessment, one could try to defend Hawaii J2, but would fail if all Japanese fleet went there.  Your topic confused us I think lol.  You wanted experienced players to defend hawaii J2, and tell us our buys, but an experienced player would never be in that situation J2 haha.

    *Unless Japanese split her fleet and USA could smash something US2.



  • I actually employed that strategy once with the US and was very successful now that I think about it - the bait and switch that is.

    I mostly just hate playing the same strategy, which is why I was trying to come up with a way to accomplish the same thing in a different way.

    Back to the drawing board.



  • @Spendo02:

    I actually employed that strategy once with the US and was very successful now that I think about it - the bait and switch that is.

    I mostly just hate playing the same strategy, which is why I was trying to come up with a way to accomplish the same thing in a different way.

    Back to the drawing board.

    We’re talking about test of time strategies, and most optimal here from experience.  My players are crazy and always try new strategies.  You have to think outside the box sometimes.  For instances, I had a Japanese player take all his starting fleet, and went south around Brazil and smashed his forces into the Union of South Africa!!  How’s that for crazy.



  • I thought marching across Russia was insane with Japan - until I tried it.
    I thought skipping past Calcutta with MY ENTIRE FLEET was insane - until I tried it.
    I thought attacking J1 was insane - until I tried it.
    I thought buying bombers with Germany each round was insane - until I tried it. (devastating)
    I thought Sea Lion was insane - until I tried it.

    In short, most strategies are born from doing something extreme and learning something from it.  When you find something that works, you either work to make it better or keep it in your back pocket to pull out at some unlikely time - such as an early all SS build for the US puts Japan in a tough spot because those subs act as fodder, can’t be be hit by aircraft, are effective at convoying gains and can sink ships if Japan doesn’t buy DD - which is generally a losing proposition for them.  Factor in a handful of SS making their way into the Med can spell doom for Italy when coupled with a few UK SS as well - who would have thought buying 12 SS in a single round was EVER a good idea - perhaps not the best, but disruptive for sure.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Spendo02:

    I mostly just hate playing the same strategy, which is why I was trying to come up with a way to accomplish the same thing in a different way.

    To this I whole heartedly agree!

    Also, I’d like to point out there’s a LOT you can do with unseen strategies.  I’ve seen Germany take Washington DC early in the game (Alpha +2) because America just wasn’t looking for it, they were so tunneled in on not having London fall they totally missed that the Germans in Gibraltar could get to DC as well, just for ONE example.



  • @Spendo02:

    Much of that assertion is based on play testing of the Allies moving to defend Hawaii in the first round.

    Obviously that changes if you withdraw because the only trade would be the starting fleet off Hawaii, which easily translates to a strong consolidated navy off of Western US.

    That is why I posed the question regarding what would be an Allied response to a J1 DOW that stages in SZ6 and paves the way to sack Honolulu on J2 as I was not sure if that would be an experienced US player’s response….

    …My standard play has been to defend Hawaii at all costs which included Anzac’s involvement (to see what the board looks like) while purchasing US1 SS and Bombers.  I never considered the US option to give it up and consolidate - which appears to be a better and stronger play…

    We have a few regular and experienced players and now that we have played Global enough times America’s response to Japan positioning it’s fleet in range of Hawaii is always to just run away and let them have it.

    Bringing back the Pacific fleet is always the stronger move because if Japan keeps sending fleet to Hawaii then it’s going the wrong way. Not being in striking distance of DEI and India means that the UK will start slowly building a non-trivial fleet of ships and will be making 30+ IPCs.

    Meanwhile America is out pretty much nothing but a few IPCs and can just casually build boats and watch. The second Japan leaves they just retake Hawaii with almost no effort.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 36
  • 4
  • 17
  • 2
  • 9
  • 5
  • 14
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

37
Online

14.8k
Users

35.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts