Pearl Harbor

That is ok but if the USN can remain in SZ6 Japan is pretty much toast.

You can build a DD in SZ6 to force the USN to face Kamikazes or retreat but if that is not enough, things are bad for Japan.

:-) :-P :roll:

OK, finally got my forum account up and running.  The confirmation email was in my Junk Mail Box of all places. :roll:

Intriguing to see all of the Strategic discussions fostered about the J1 Attack.  I found myself being pulled towards Taamvan and Simon33 and Bomber Harris….and then pulled back to Wild Bill and Zerxes.  I’ve decided a gradual accumulation of the money islands by end of J3 is in order.  I will pull back J2 to Carolines (maybe…tend towards being a little compulsive which makes for surprises) but only once I’ve spanked PACFLT hard with IJF “Air Power!!” :-o and left 1 or 2 Gnd Units behind in Honolulu for the US to deal with.

Moving fwd I’d like to ask any of you about moving the 2x IN in Siam West instead of east in an attempt to prestage an attack on Malay on J2 with IJAF and no Amphib landing (focusing all TT amphib action on the money Is.).  This would kill the ANZAC NO early and keep AUS small.  Realize I can do the same thing by landing on New Guinea and threaten Dutch W. New Guinea.

Another issue I’d like to discuss. 
Not trying to cheat, but trying to visualize and stretch to its limits the advantage of leaving carriers behind for ghost Non-Combat Moves (NCMs) to justify maximizing Ftrs in an AirSea Battle (ASB).  Lets say in my J1 Attack on Pearl I use planes from the 2 IJN Carriers (CV) in SZ 6 but I also want to use the 2 planes from the SZ33 carrier to attack Manila, also on J1.  If I leave both CVs in SZ6 there until the NCM phase and I do the same with the carrier in SZ33, would this justify me being able to bring an add’l 2 Ftrs from mainland Japan AB into the battle at Pearl SZ26 for a total of 6x Ftrs in that AO…this all justified even if I only end up actually bringing 2 CVs in during the NCM phase because I selected 2 of the 6 planes as casualties during CC phase?

In other words, is the use of fighters I laid out above legal or not?  Or, if I only have 3 CVs allocated btw the 2 Battles, is 4x Ftrs the max total I can fly into SZ26 from JPN SZ6 and 2x Ftrs into Philippines from CV at Caroline Is.?  And, that’s just how the rules work about bonified landing spots…

Short answer is no your carriers can’t pull double duty. All your planes must have eligible landing spots when you set-up your combat moves.

WB.  Rog.  In YGH’s video the benefit when losing the planes was that only one CV had to move not that you get to add more planes……can I get ur thoughts on all of the above?

@Teflon2017:

WB.  Rog.   In YGH’s video the benefit when losing the planes was that only one CV had to move not that you get to add more planes……can I get ur thoughts on all of the above?

That is correct - the CV doesn’t have to NCM to catch dead planes. This doesn’t exempt you from the need to have a possible (however unlikely) NCM to catch all the planes if they all live. It can depend on the clearing of a SZ that is being attacked by one sub vs 10 defending BBs, for example, but it has to be theoretically possible.

I like to go for Malaya J2 for the reason you posted (Anz NO), plus that is the direction I want to go anyway to pressure India. So on J2 I will have fleet at Malaya, Caroline’s, and probably Philippines. All these are in striking distance to Queensland sz54. Not saying I would hit it, because I’m more interested in the money islands J3, but the threat is real and might keep the Anz building ground and not ships.

I also drop an IC on FIC J2 (sometimes Kwangtung too) so I can get a resurgence into China, threaten India, or for fleet later if I need to.

I don’t go for Hawaii unless the U.S. adds more ships to it and you have great odds making it really worth while.  Attacking it with a J1 attack puts way too many of your ships out of range.  You really need some of those down south and removing a few U.S. doesn’t make the cut.  It is just like going after Australia when you can’t even take Sydney.  The worst part is the fact that you can’t litterally take Hawaii itself which means no sea base to get repaired or get out of there.  Of course you can take Hawaii turn 2, but once again you are out of range of doing more important things.  On top of all this, the U.S. will b a little sad that he lost some ships, but on the other hand, he now has an easy way to get in the fight and is tying up a lot of enemy units.

@Young:

Why not converge as much Japanese navy that can reach into the Hawaii sea zone, with the American ships already there (they’re neutral powers after all). America wouldn’t be able to attack US1, the American ships wouldn’t be able to escape far, and America can only build 3 units off San Francisco US1, leaving them sitting ducks for a J2 attack (I call it a crowbar)… anyone care to do the math on that?

This actually isn’t possible. Japan can’t be within 2 spaces of Western US without declaring war and the Hawaii sea zone is 2 spaces.

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

We would really have an argument about the rules and the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory if Japan was allowed to “pass at peace” with the USA, waiting neutral with its entire fleet in SZ 26 off French Frigate Shoals.

Seems like that would be hard for the American patrols to miss…

@creeping-deth87:

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

SZ1, SZ10, SZ2 are all one space from those territories.

SZs 11, 3, 8, 9 and 12 are all two spaces.

SZ26 is 3 spaces
SZ25 is 4 spaces

@simon33:

@creeping-deth87:

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

SZ1, SZ10, SZ2 are all one space from those territories.

SZs 11, 3, 8, 9 and 12 are all two spaces.

SZ26 is 3 spaces
SZ25 is 4 spaces

LOL wow you are really trying to stretch this. SZ 26 is within 2 sea zones of western us. There is no ambiguity here, it’s a very explicit rule.

@ShadowHAwk:

Lets think about the rule.

It was clearly intended to make sure that Japan cannot invade the US before they are at war. Especialy important in the pacific game.
So verry easy, you cannot put ships in any SZ that would ( if those ships where transports ) allow an invasion of the US continent.

Though this makes it pretty hard for japan to actualy attack russia as it would need to be at war with the US in order to do so.
Never thought of that rule.

The Japanese could not end their turn in SZ4, but they could end their turn in SZ 5, and therefore still invade the Soviet Union.

@creeping-deth87:

LOL wow you are really trying to stretch this. SZ 26 is within 2 sea zones of western us. There is no ambiguity here, it’s a very explicit rule.

Hmm, This has never come up in a game I’ve played. I guess if it says “sea zones”, your reading would be correct.

This debate about the meaning of the phrase “within two sea zones” has me somewhat confused about a rule I never really looked at before. For example, if you look at the map, then SZ26 is clearly three sea zones away from the Western US. Nobody would doubt that if they were land zones. But the fact that they are sea zones implies that an amphibious invasion from that zone would be possible.

And it stands to reason that you’d want to rule out such an invasion, as pointed out by ShadowHawk:

@ShadowHAwk:

Lets think about the rule.

It was clearly intended to make sure that Japan cannot invade the US before they are at war. Especialy important in the pacific game.
So verry easy, you cannot put ships in any SZ that would ( if those ships where transports ) allow an invasion of the US continent.

But if you consider that, then how about transports in SZ6? They can invade Alaska, but surely Japan can build them there?

So why I agree that SZ 26 is probably not accessible to Japan while not at war with the US, I’d appreciate an official ruling just to be sure.

Sea zone 6 is within 2 sea zones of the Aleutian Islands, not Alaska. There is no problem there with the rule.

After much contemplation, I agree with Simon’s interpretation of the rule.  We have never permitted the Japanese to “pass at peace” and hang out in SZ 26, but there is no obvious way of reading the “within 2 Sea Zones” as including SZ 26.

The first SZ counted must be SZ 10, SZ 1 or SZ 2.  It doesn’t make sense to say “within 2 SZ of the mainland” and then somehow NOT begin counting with the adjacent sea zone.    The rule might have said “within 2 SZ REACH” or “within 2 SZ of the coast etc.” but that isn’t what it says.

If this is correct, then SZ 4, SZ 14, SZ 13 and SZ 26 are all accessible by Japan before war.  Since the US can still block the Japanese passage to the west coast/Alaska during the Combat Move with screens, it doesn’t appear to result in any horrible outcomes.  It does make a new, unblockable/unscreenable squatting strategy possible.

It could also be an omission, I don’t know.

I think we need an official ruling here just to make sure, so I posted it to the FAQ.

@ShadowHAwk:

Yes was thinking about SZ6 but that is the only SZ that really creates the problem.

And transports cannot get to alaska on their own they need the naval base.

But the intend of the rule is the same, to prevent a sucker punch to the US that cannot be stopped.

So in stead of trying to find loopholes to abuse the rules just try to find out what was the intend of the rule and then play by that. We are not lawers here ( most of us ) and we are not in a courtroom defending a murder suspect. Its a friendly game between X players, just use common sense if things clearly look like your abusing the rules just dont do it.

Like for instance Russia in afrika, clearly their NO was designed with the idea to help speed up the game in case germany screwed up.
The historical sense was also related to this, the allies would never allow russia to take control of Axis countries in afrika.

Yes it is in the rules, yes you can land 1 inf on sicily and move your mech towards afrika. But it feels cheesy.
If you go purely by the book then yes japan can sucker punch the US because withing 2 SZ means you can be in the 3th and would be allowed an invasion without warning, and that is also kinda cheesy.

Although you made a good point, might be an idea to put a naval base a bit closer to the US and actualy invade them when you declare war. Might be a 1 off thing but surely will get their attention. Idealy combined with sea-lion.

I do appreciate your line of thinking and like to conduct actual games in that spirit, but at the same time I think it’s better to get clarity about rule issues when there’s no actual game involved. Attempting to understand the intent of a rule leaves us guessing, and may lead to debates about what is and is not reasonable during the game.

The USSR national objective is indeed a clear example of a rule that has the potential of being abused. Would a Soviet force have occupied Italian Somaliland during World War 2? Of course not. Could Soviet agents have infiltrated remote parts of Italy to bolster the already vibrant communist resistance and kick out Mussolini’s faltering regime? Now such a scenario could be open for debate.
And of course, it’s odd that the rule doesn’t apply to Korea. Taking Korea would clearly meet all the requirement of a major USSR success that should be rewarded accordingly, but it isn’t.

So all in all, I still prefer to do some rule lawyering here on this board, to having a debate about intent during a real game.