Attacking and Defending SZ6 (Surrounding Japan)


  • 2019 2017 2016

    If SZ6 is attacked by the USN, such as with an amphibious assault, the Japanese can kamikaze strike on any loaded aircraft carriers. Doesn’t necessarily sink the planes unless they have nowhere else to land, but they probably won’t. If there are two, three strikes each is probably good enough but more can be wasteful. You only need to hit the carrier once to deny the landing field. Problem is that you have to decide whether to scramble before the kamikaze can be resolved.

    Is the standard move to leave a destroyer in SZ6 with 3 fighters on the airbase in Japan? If the destroyer is attacked by no surface ships, just planes and subs, then that holds back the aircraft carriers and reduces the difficulty of dislodging the USN from SZ6 significantly. I’m thinking that a few subs with the destroyer would get a surprise strike but only at a one so it doesn’t seem a good investment to defend it more strongly than that.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    I always leave a DD or two  in SZ6, as I often have a TT there. Three Fts are a must for Japan.
    Can I say, however, that the US usually hits the SZ with Air, then moves in its  fleet.



  • kamikazes are basicaly useless in the game, unless there is a huge naval battle.

    If you leave 1 DD in SZ6 what prevents the US from just attacking with air and a sub or 3 and then in non-combat walk in and sit in the SZ.
    With plenty of planes and a few subs what prevents you from just invading korea this way and then move the carriers and the rest of the fleet in Non-combat?

    Kamikazes cannot be used against subs or transports so they cannot be used in this situation and once the US fleet is there it is not moving in there so kamikazes cannot be used unless the US invades japan proper and why would they anyway, just convoy them to death while you take back everything there is with Anzac.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    You have another  one in SZ16, blocking Subs getting there, naturally.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    Good points. However if the US is already there and Korea has been reclaimed, then they would have to move their carriers out of SZ6 on the combat move to avoid the Kamikaze and then they wouldn’t be able to move back in on the non combat move, so the SZ would become considerably weaker. You can achieve a similar effect by buying a destroyer in SZ6 after the carrier(s) have moved in, provoking a combat with the carriers or forcing a withdrawal.

    I knew there had to be some loophole which I was missing.

    @wittmann:

    You have another  one in SZ16, blocking Subs getting there, naturally.

    That only blocks the via Hawaii/Midway routes. You can also go via SZ15 or SZ8. Note the via Hawaii/Midway route can be threatened by a force in the Carolines.



  • Defending SZ6 is a game-long affair… it really needs to be calculated from the get-go, what the US can put in there and when and what needs to be left behind to defend it. It is basically THE defensive calculation that Japan needs to make, and the US for its part needs to be making it from the opposite point of view.


  • Customizer

    As Japan, I have had good luck putting an airbase and 3 more fighters on Korea. If you can keep 3 fighters there and 3 on Japan, then 6 fighters defending SZ 6 is pretty powerful, even if the US only sends air and subs. They will have to send a lot of planes to take those Japanese fighters out and it will be costly.



  • @knp7765:

    As Japan, I have had good luck putting an airbase and 3 more fighters on Korea. If you can keep 3 fighters there and 3 on Japan, then 6 fighters defending SZ 6 is pretty powerful, even if the US only sends air and subs. They will have to send a lot of planes to take those Japanese fighters out and it will be costly.

    Not really, you got a DD there and 6 fighters.
    US sends in 6 subs and 3 fighters + 3 tacticals.

    Lowluck for ease of comparison.
    Round 1 Japan 4 hits
    Round 1 US  3-4 hits
    So 4 subs vs 1 DD and 2 fighters
    Round 2 japan 3 hits ( rounded up )
    Round 2 US    4 hits ( rounded up )
    US wins with 3 tacticals left.  So 3 planes and 4 subs vs 6 planes and 1 DD 48 VS 68 Yes ill take that trade please.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    kamikazes are basicaly useless in the game, unless there is a huge naval battle

    .

    Could someone please clarify the kamikaze rules? I thought that you could kamikaze any enemy surface warships in the marked zones during combat movement but I guess I’ve been completely wrong this whole time.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    There has to be a combat or an amphibious assault from that sea zone. The capital ships can remain outside the sea zone and move on the non combat if they didn’t start in the SZ, but that doesn’t work so well if there’s a big naval combat involved.



  • @JeroldTheGreat:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    kamikazes are basicaly useless in the game, unless there is a huge naval battle

    .

    Could someone please clarify the kamikaze rules? I thought that you could kamikaze any enemy surface warships in the marked zones during combat movement but I guess I’ve been completely wrong this whole time.

    They’re a pre-combat option I believe. No combat, no kamikaze.

    I don’t recall having ever used them even though I mostly play Axis. All they do is add a small additional amount of uncertainty to Allied attacks, so a little more force needs to be sent to establish a buffer against them. By the time the Allies are attacking those zones, the size of navies in play are too large for kamikazes to be meaningful.

    If they weren’t in the game, who would miss them?



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @knp7765:

    As Japan, I have had good luck putting an airbase and 3 more fighters on Korea. If you can keep 3 fighters there and 3 on Japan, then 6 fighters defending SZ 6 is pretty powerful, even if the US only sends air and subs. They will have to send a lot of planes to take those Japanese fighters out and it will be costly.

    Not really, you got a DD there and 6 fighters.
    US sends in 6 subs and 3 fighters + 3 tacticals.

    Lowluck for ease of comparison.
    Round 1 Japan 4 hits
    Round 1 US  3-4 hits
    So 4 subs vs 1 DD and 2 fighters
    Round 2 japan 3 hits ( rounded up )
    Round 2 US     4 hits ( rounded up )
    US wins with 3 tacticals left.  So 3 planes and 4 subs vs 6 planes and 1 DD 48 VS 68 Yes ill take that trade please.

    I think the idea of being able to scramble 6 fighters is not to actually scramble them, but it force the US to use alot of resources on killing it. As japan, if you attacked with that force, I would not scramble, but I would send in a single DD and alot of Airforces to just kill all those subs going in. That way, I would trade 4 subs with one DD.



  • Scrambling six fighters instead of just three is also why I prefer a G1 airbase in Holland. Having more options eases defensive deployment and extends your counter attack range. Granted, players evolve their strategy based on some things that do not change, such as starting unit placement. But have you considered how the airbase fundamentally extends the range of the air units in that zone beyond the range of movement of invading fleets? Furthermore, Axis loves when you postpone your invasion. By changing how many units COULD join in the sea battle, it forces the invader to be strong in both zones, and postponing the invasion for too long is a route to Allied defeat.



  • @Kreuzfeld:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @knp7765:

    As Japan, I have had good luck putting an airbase and 3 more fighters on Korea. If you can keep 3 fighters there and 3 on Japan, then 6 fighters defending SZ 6 is pretty powerful, even if the US only sends air and subs. They will have to send a lot of planes to take those Japanese fighters out and it will be costly.

    Not really, you got a DD there and 6 fighters.
    US sends in 6 subs and 3 fighters + 3 tacticals.

    Lowluck for ease of comparison.
    Round 1 Japan 4 hits
    Round 1 US  3-4 hits
    So 4 subs vs 1 DD and 2 fighters
    Round 2 japan 3 hits ( rounded up )
    Round 2 US     4 hits ( rounded up )
    US wins with 3 tacticals left.  So 3 planes and 4 subs vs 6 planes and 1 DD 48 VS 68 Yes ill take that trade please.

    I think the idea of being able to scramble 6 fighters is not to actually scramble them, but it force the US to use alot of resources on killing it. As japan, if you attacked with that force, I would not scramble, but I would send in a single DD and alot of Airforces to just kill all those subs going in. That way, I would trade 4 subs with one DD.

    Well problem is that after that i just non-combat my whole fleet in there. Ofcourse if your fleet is out of position.
    And that would be a guaranteed 11 IPC loss due to convoys.
    Kamikazes are useless again because your the attacker not me.

    If i even had enough land forces i would take korea for good measure and then reinforce it with russia so now you got a fleet in ZS6 and korea in US hands that you wont be taking back anytime soon.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    But 1 DD stops you from doing that.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    @simon33:

    There has to be a combat or an amphibious assault from that sea zone. The capital ships can remain outside the sea zone and move on the non combat if they didn’t start in the SZ, but that doesn’t work so well if there’s a big naval combat involved.

    If the Allies control sea zone 6 and have capital ships present, you can force them to move or initiate combat by doing a build in sea zone 6 on Japan’s turn. Then the ships have to run or you have the option to use your kamikazes.

    Marsh


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    @ShadowHAwk:

    Well problem is that after that i just non-combat my whole fleet in there. Ofcourse if your fleet is out of position.
    And that would be a guaranteed 11 IPC loss due to convoys.
    Kamikazes are useless again because your the attacker not me.

    While the loss of 11 IPCs for Japan is nasty, I have at times abandoned sea zone six to go and kill India and had it work out very well. Sea zone 6 is important, but losing control of it doesn’t necessarily end Japan’s game.

    Marsh



  • @Marshmallow:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    Well problem is that after that i just non-combat my whole fleet in there. Ofcourse if your fleet is out of position.
    And that would be a guaranteed 11 IPC loss due to convoys.
    Kamikazes are useless again because your the attacker not me.

    While the loss of 11 IPCs for Japan is nasty, I have at times abandoned sea zone six to go and kill India and had it work out very well. Sea zone 6 is important, but losing control of it doesn’t necessarily end Japan’s game.

    Marsh

    To me, its a simple money game.  It may lose 11 IPC / round in Convoy - but how many IPC will it cost me to defend it?  Much much more.  Even three full turns of convoy is only 33 IPC.

    I’m not defending SZ6 with 33 IPC of units against a determined US opponent.  I’m probably not defending it for anything less than 70 IPC worth of invested units considering what the USN starts with in the Pacific.  And really, to keep the US away I’ll probably need upwards of 100 IPC of value to deter the US from harassing SZ6 if it REALLY wants to convoy there.

    I’ll happily project force in other places and accept the cost of doing business will be 11 IPC / turn of potential convoy fully knowing that when KIF concludes I can swing back to SZ6 or threaten it rather quickly.

    I’ve found the USN is almost always better served to get into the action around the DEI than sit and convoy Japan for 11 IPC with much of its fleet.

    And, if the USN just wants to send SS there, an IJN DD with a few FTR really requires more than just SS to take control of SZ6 and enforce an effective convoy for all 11 IPC.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    @Spendo02:

    To me, its a simple money game.  It may lose 11 IPC / round in Convoy - but how many IPC will it cost me to defend it?  Much much more.  Even three full turns of convoy is only 33 IPC.

    I’m not defending SZ6 with 33 IPC of units against a determined US opponent.  I’m probably not defending it for anything less than 70 IPC worth of invested units considering what the USN starts with in the Pacific.  And really, to keep the US away I’ll probably need upwards of 100 IPC of value to deter the US from harassing SZ6 if it REALLY wants to convoy there.

    I’ll happily project force in other places and accept the cost of doing business will be 11 IPC / turn of potential convoy fully knowing that when KIF concludes I can swing back to SZ6 or threaten it rather quickly.

    I’ve found the USN is almost always better served to get into the action around the DEI than sit and convoy Japan for 11 IPC with much of its fleet.

    And, if the USN just wants to send SS there, an IJN DD with a few FTR really requires more than just SS to take control of SZ6 and enforce an effective convoy for all 11 IPC.

    Exactly! The loss, while not a great one, does not cause Japan more grief than it can handle. Furthermore, if the Allies do sit in sea zone 6, Japan can consolidate its fleet and with a couple of builds engage in combat on its turns at its leisure as soon as the US stops spending to defend sea zone 6.

    In short, if you can’t defend it give it up and make the other guy defend it instead! Defense is a whole separate problem from attack, and one that is seldom answered by the exact same force.

    For example, Italy can be utterly screwed over by letting them have Egypt early in the game so that it has to spend all its income to defend Egypt while the UK threatens Egypt and has a much bigger global impact!

    Marsh



  • There are much much better ways to screw over Italy than letting them have Egypt. Use UK air to prevent Italy from floating any ships, then send a bunch of subs to convoy away its income. Tried and true method of keeping Italy down to at most whatever income it cannibalized off of Germany on the eastern front.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    The problem is that you can’t build your replacement navy on the Chinese coast north of FIC. If you can build some of it in India or Sydney, that could work. What is worse is when you don’t have an IC in FIC or really need it to crank out ground units. FIC can still be threatened by planes and a naval base can be built by the US on Korea, assuming  they hold that, which they generally do if they’re controlling SZ6 at least in my games.

    The move of buying a DD in SZ6 and forcing the ACs out or kamikazing them does weaken the US force in the area so you can take it back more easily. It’s an idea worth keeping in the back pocket. It’s particularly useful if the convoying force is mostly subs.



  • Losing SZ6 is extremely difficult to recover from. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it done successfully. It is not merely the 11 IPC lost to convoys, but the need to now defend Japan proper with land units to avoid losing the capital, as well as the loss of strategic leverage in the lack of ability to project threat from that SZ over the entire Asian coast and much of the Pacific.

    IMO losing SZ6 is a game-breaker for Japan. If Germany is not having a fantastic game at that point, the Axis have lost.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    I’ve never recovered from it either. But I feel it might be possible depending on how handicapped you are navally compared to the US. If US is building its SZ6 force faster than the IJN is strengthening, then the game is virtually lost.

    My last game I came the closest. I had 11 subs off the Carolines, blocking reinforcement via Hawaii and an increasing number of strat bombers to attack forces moving in. But the game was lost in USSR.



  • @SubmersedElk:

    Losing SZ6 is extremely difficult to recover from. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it done successfully. It is not merely the 11 IPC lost to convoys, but the need to now defend Japan proper with land units to avoid losing the capital, as well as the loss of strategic leverage in the lack of ability to project threat from that SZ over the entire Asian coast and much of the Pacific.

    IMO losing SZ6 is a game-breaker for Japan. If Germany is not having a fantastic game at that point, the Axis have lost.

    My position with Japan is always the same:  If the US is spending in the Pacific, the Axis are still winning.

    Russia and the UK cannot stop a well played Germany and Italy for the Europe win without participation by the US.

    If the US is fighting to keep a convoy on SZ6 and Japan has consolidated its power in Asia, the US is likely committed to KJF at this point and if so, that leaves Europe open for the Axis VC win.

    Rarely, if ever, do I expect to win with Japan.  However, a hyper aggressive Japan forces the US to economically invest in the Pacific.  This is a win for the Axis 9 times out of 10.  Tokyo is a hard nut to crack for the US.  Accepting the Convoy in SZ6 is just part of the “trap” to encourage the US to continue to invest in it’s “gains” in the Pacific.

    Put simply, SZ6 and therefore Tokyo is the cheese in the Axis mousetrap for the US.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    @SubmersedElk:

    Losing SZ6 is extremely difficult to recover from. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it done successfully.

    I disagree 100%. I have NEVER had a problem reclaiming sea zone six from the Allies if I wanted to. It’s just a matter of proper planning and execution.

    Marsh


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 13
  • 76
  • 9
  • 21
  • 24
  • 8
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games

60
Online

13.5k
Users

33.9k
Topics

1.3m
Posts