• OK here is my idea…… I want to “stick it to America” so I was thinking of loading my transports in japan in round one. I would buy 3 fighters in the first round. Then in round 2 I would land in Alaska, with a tank,art, and 2 inf. On round 3 I would build a factory and land my 3 fighters… Would than take the pressure off of Germany? Let me know what you think of that idea…


  • this is in the wrong forum, for one thing.

    I do like the idea of “sticking it to America”, but i have found that this distracts a little too much from Japan’s real goal which is to:

    1. take over as much of Asia as possible
    2. get its’ income over 40
    3. force Russia to pull away from the west.

    With a “take Ala” strat, then you suffer income-wise, allowing the US to build up a large enough army to crush you as you are stalling.  In the meantime, Russia and UK can simply gang up on Germany.
    At least this has been my experience.


  • Very good review CC.

    First off, Japan will have only ONE tranny on J1 against most oppoents here (UK killing that TRN off Kwang is pretty much a given).

    Second, if you send your TRN north, you are going to need to send screening ships along.  If you also hit Pearl, that means most of the UK fleet is still going to be left alive to harass you on turn 2, and possibly beyond.

    Third, if you do not make strong moves on Russia early, Japan will not only not be helping to weaken Russia in their fight agaisnt Germany, but Russia is also likely to lose Manch, Kwang, and FIC in short order (your TRN’s are bound for Alaska, so all you have are startign units for Asia… and Russia, the US and UK can chew those up by the end of Turn 2, the same turn you land in Alaska.

    Lastly, once you stage loaded TRN en route to Alaska, a few ARM built by US in US1, and your landing force is smashed before you ever build your IC (or the US waits, let’s you build it, THEN takes it from you, giving them a ratehr interesting series of tactical uses against what is now a VERY crippled Japan.

    Read through the Revised forums.  This has been discussed at length… and Japan attacking the US is a viable strat in ONLY one case… and that is a very specific goal about 4-6 turns in and relates mostly to Germany strategy.  And even then the value of it is questionable.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    Hmm, which forum should I move this to? Axis & Allies or Axis & Allies Revised?


  • HAS to be Revised…

    In Classic, Japan only starts with 25 IPC’s and FIGS are 12 each. 
    Since he specified buying 3 FIGs, has to be revised where FIGs cost 10 and Japan starts with 30 IPCs 😄


  • I do not think that Japan would be able to succeed for the same reason I do not believe the US can succeed a similar type offensive against the Japanese.

    You will not be able to take the other nation by surprise and requires a multi-turn build up.  Your opponent will see it coming and deal with it.

    Give it a try, but I do not believe you will get the desired results….not against me, anyhow  😉

  • 2007 AAR League

    imho japan attacing us never works…… i have seen the us take japan before though, the counterside to that was russia fell to the germans,  resulting in the 2 land based capitals battleing the 3 island capitals…ended in a draw after about eleventeen million rounds…both players were very inexperienced newbies i was the one that lost japan


  • the threat or possibility of a west coast/alaska landing can be useful in reducing the number of usa troops heading for europe, the downside is if you actually land in alaska or mexico to distract the usa then those units are not in asia (as well as any figs on the cv in you fleet) so is the net positive or negative? i like staging aroung NZ occasionally just to keep usa honest in western, but any invasion of the usa can only be done against either new or borderline incompetent play on the part of the usa.  that being said, i am devising a jap strat that consists of pressuring usa without sacrificing asia, but haven’t had the chance to try it out yet, maybe this weekend, our group has had a long hiatus and the withdrawls are indeed painful


  • There is a previous thread on this where a “timed” Japan landing in North America is discussed as a means to interupt the American shuck into Europe as Germany prepares to make their major push.

    I THINK it was under the Classic threads, but the concept would be as valid with Revised, just need to tweek the timing…

  • 2007 AAR League

    @ncscswitch:

    There is a previous thread on this where a “timed” Japan landing in North America is discussed as a means to interupt the American shuck into Europe as Germany prepares to make their major push.

    I THINK it was under the Classic threads, but the concept would be as valid with Revised, just need to tweek the timing…

    Wasn’t that strat proposed in the Caspian Sub rules papers?  I remember seeing it there.  I think…


  • I so, was independently developed.

    I have only ever read one Caspian Sub strat… the 3 transport build G1 concept… and I was so NOT impressed I won;t join their yahell group to read any of the others.


  • Why not postpone the Japan attack on Alsake/Western Can to J3.

    On J1 buy 3 tran + take China + Pearl
    On J2 buy stuff to fill 4 trannies + take Buryata (make sure the navy is in the SZ right by it)
    On J3 use the trannies in SZ 60 (I believe that’s the one by Bury) and disembark all in Western (maybe some in Alaska but it would lower the pressure on Western US). Doing this, the US would be hard pressed to reinforce WUS. If they did only buy navy up to this point… or focused solely on the eastern coast, they’ll have to spend all this turn income on defense… end even then, the Japs have a slight chance of taking WUS with their 4 INF, 4 ART and between 2 to 4 figs + 2 BB.

    I don’t usually do that but it might be a good diversion… and might turn into a game breaker if Japan take WUS.

    Your thought?


  • It will divert U.S. economy.

    The price you pay for that, however, is getting out of position for Japanese expansion to Africa or Australia/NZ. It also slows you down in Asia, which allows Russia to breathe easy for a few turns and focus on Germany.

    I feel that the Alaska/W Canada backdoor is better as a threat, and if undefended perhaps a quick economic strike later in the game with minimal troops, just to be a thorn in America’s side.


  • I have to agree.

    In my current game with Nix, he left 1 INF in Alaska, nothign in Western or Central US, and Western Canada was vacant.

    I slipped 1 of my 4 TRN, along with a BB up to SZ63 and dropped 2 INF into WCan.

    Sure, I only gained a buck, but I could have walked into both Central and Western US if he had not moved existing Eastern forces to Central and built forces in Western.  And with the BB, he had to build more than just 2 INF in Western to block.

    2 INF from Eastern are 2 INF that will not land in Europe in 2 rounds.
    And those 4 units built in Western are 3-4 rounds away from Europe.

    I bailed on the next Japan move and sent those 2 INF back to Bury for the march to Moscow.

    My losses:  1 turn of movement in Asia on 2 INF.
    US losses:  2 round delay on 2 INF, 3 round delay on 2 ARM, 4 round delay on 2 INF reaching Europe.

    And of course Japan collected an extra IPC when they took it, and will collect a second one before the US takes it back since the UK did not do so 🙂

  • 2007 AAR League

    The caspian sub have a joint invasion of canada policy paper, that some of you might wanan check it out.


  • Exactly Switch. I’m in a game now (hope he’s not reading this) in which Alaska’s undefended, and W Canada has 1 Brit Inf. Next turn (J5) I’ll simultaneously hit Hawaii (with my troops who just finished mopping up NZ) and slip one tranny from SZ 60 to Alaska w/ 2 Inf. Since he has nothing in W U.S., he’ll have to respond to 4 units parked on his doorstep. Of course I have no intention of attacking. On J6 I’ll pull back. As you said, for the cost of 2 Inf (temporarily) in Asia I’ll get 2 IPCs for two rounds, and he’ll have to retake Alaska as well as build.

    There’s no way, however, that I’d divert those troops if they were going to be destroyed in a counterattack or if he had previously defended the area. When I play the U.S. I aggressively tithe Inf to W Canada with a small offensive component to make sure the backdoor is always guarded. Then I’m sure I can maintain my focus on Europe.


  • Or simply establish your European Shuck with builds in WESTERN US, moving the forces to WCan then Ecan for transport to Western Europe.

    It is only 1 round slower for INF and ART than Eastern builds… and TOTALLY prevents any thought of a Japan landing from Panama north.


  • so the “threat” of hitting canada/alaska slows usa shuck by one round, thats a pretty fair deal for japan


  • Only the INF.

    And if the US STARTS by building in Western US, then there is no real delay.

    In point of fact, they hit Europe HARDER on the round they first land, and are better able to sustain repeated landings, by going this route.


  • i like the idea of building in the west as well, then if the opportunity arises to play in the pacific you got the boots right there!  but it does slow the move to europe looking over your shoulder at 4 trannies in sz60


  • I’ve been lucky enough in a couple of games to be able to set up the shuck you speak of Switch. You end up being able to defend the west and keep a steady flow to Europe.

    I’ve had a couple games in which I set up a 2x2 chain to Norway and a 3x3 to Algeria. Friggin’ devastating. Once the infrastructure is in place you just let the Infantry roll with the occasional tank or two for punch. And the northern chain gets its Inf from the W U.S., walked to W Can, walked to E Can. Japan never feels too comfortable approaching the coastline.


  • Exactly…

    Japan can;t do the “cheap” move into Alaska or WCan if you are shucking via Western US builds.

    And if you happen to preserve your initial BB and TRN as the US in the Pacific, then Japan has to CONSTANTLY worry about the US diverting forces to Asia… especially if you add a TRN off Western, then move all 3 naval units to SZ64… out of range of Japan based forces, but within range of landing in SFE and Bury…


  • precisely switch, i love the juneau sea zone 🙂

    i usually set up the 3x3 in the north and 2x2 in africa because it is easier to control africa than it is to maintain a foothold in europe sometime i stage in brazil 2x2x2 and go sub-sahara (cool movie) then if the germans lose their ability to threaten the sea zone off algeria, BOOM you have 12 units and six trannies, going immediately to a 3x3 into algeria that threatens rome  😉


  • When playing the US, I keep an eye on Japan’s pacific trannies even though I’m focused on KGF.  If Japan looks like they may try something cute on the west coast of North America, I simply build some/all of my tanks in Western US.  The US often has discretionary cash to buy an extra Inf or two as well on the west, while still buying enough to fill it’s trannies on the east.

    If Japan lands, the tanks plus “extra” inf crush them on the counter, and if they don’t the tanks move to Eastern Canada via Western Canada with no delay to the shuck to Europe at all.

    @88:

    3x3 to Algeria.

    Not sure why you’d need a 3x3 (or 2x2) to Algeria.  If the troops bound for Algeria are staged in Eastern Canada, trannies can shuttle between adjacent zones SZ12 (off Algeria) to SZ9 (off Canada), picking up and dropping troops in the same turn.  Unless you want additional trannies down there to threaten Southern Europe or something.


  • James- the last part of your post was right on- I like to always keep Germany under pressure on as many fronts as possible. I know that when I play Germany I’m relieved when I only have to defend either the top or the bottom. Having to defend both slows down the push into Russia. Think of it this way- how many times as Germany have the Allies moved one of their fleets, and suddenly your Germany based troops or S Europe based troops can move east? Since I know the feeling, when I’m the Allies I never like my opponent to feel comfortable. Even if I know the whole time that it’s only a threat- my adversary doesn’t.

    Crit- good point about the north- 3x3 is strong up there. I usually play against people who continually threaten Africa with Japan, so I like to keep the upper hand economically by putting 6 U.S. ground units a turn into Algeria, and walking them across. Eventually they become a factor that can’t be ignored by the Axis. And if you really need to, your navy can move forward and they’ll be in the Caucasus in 2 rounds. But as a general rule- the north is better strategically, as the troops see action much sooner.

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 27
  • 16
  • 11
  • 49
  • 112
  • 2
  • 24
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

38
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts