@squirecam:
@U-505:
sz53 (1 fig, 1 CV, 1 DD)
1 bmb Japan
1 fig, 1 DD sz51
1 SS sz46
1 fig sz48
The sz48 fig is ALWAYS your second casualty because it allows you to move the sz51 CV away in case the battle goes worse than average. I’d rather sacrifice it instead of sending the CA into this battle for obvious reasons. In the event that you take zero casualties or 1 casualty and decide to lose the SS instead of the sz48 fig (optimal) and the CV is forced to stay in sz51, it will be safe from the US navy because of the blocking DD and it would be suicidal to attack a fully loaded CV with just the Haw fig and W US bmb. Plus the loaded CV in sz51 threatens a 1 bmb, 2 fig attack on sz53 in case the US foolishly decides to move the sz56 BB, CA there.
Not so fast my friend. The UK has a fighter in Australia. If the UK takes out the DD, the USA can sweep in on that fully loaded carrier, and sink her fast.
Good call. I’m still getting the ‘41 art and the 42’ fig mixed up in Australia.
Well, then there are 2 solutions. Take the fighter as the first casualty no matter what or go with my 1st optional move and bring the CA instead of the sz48 fighter.
Looking at it I don’t know if I would drastically change the strategy. As long as you take the fig as the first casualty, the CV is free to move away from danger. The only time it wouldn’t be able to move is if you take zero casualties which is fairly rare but not unheard of.
But let’s assume that you haven’t taken any casualties and the CV is stuck in sz51. There is still 1 DD, 1 SS in sz53.
First, 1 fig vs. 1 DD is no gimme. Yes, you don’t need the fighter to survive. All you need is to sink the DD even if you lose the fighter but it still doesn’t guarantee victory. 25% of the time the UK loses the fighter for nothing.
Second, that would also mean that an SS remains so the only unit to be able to get past it is the US SS so that makes an attack there 1 bmb, 1 fig, 1 SS vs. 2 fig, 1 CV. That still favors the Japanese. The only thing that you have to worry about is the SS sinking the CV in opening fire. But, I think it’s balanced out by the fact that while the chances that one side hits 2 to 1 or better over the other are not probable, they are more probable for the Japanese than the US. Assuming the US gets 1 hit and not by the SS, just lose the CV anyway. You can pretty much expect (roughly 92-93%) at least 1 hit back and by the Japanese aircraft so the US would have to lose the fighter at least. Only a 4 IPC loss, which is acceptable. And assuming 2 hits each, which is what you probably expect, if both of the Japanese hits are from their fighters (most likely) then the SS can’t be used as fodder so you’re looking at 1 bmb, 1 fig for 1 CV, 1 fig. Again, an acceptable 2 IPC loss.
In this particular scenario, I see the Japanese coming away with enough acceptable or favorable outcomes that it’s worth the risk to me to save the CA over the sz48 fighter and set it up for a bombardment or a naval counterattack on J2. Besides, how often would the Japanese take zero casualties in a sz53 attack? Maybe 1 in 15 games. Slightly less? Is it worth it to scrap a strategy because every 15th time you play the Japanese there’s a roughly 50/50 shot(after factoring in the fig/DD battle) for you to lose a CV in a negative IPC value unit trade?
CV’s being discounted in AA50 makes me less worried about losing 1 especially if I kill something in return for it.
@Imperious:
Its because you need the DD because you got lots of capital ships and US will buy subs to hunt them down with preemptive shots and you as japan wont be able to sink them unless you got destroyers.
buy cruisers and see what he does.
If the US buys subs then why can’t you just buy subs, too. As long as the US and Japanese fleets dance around 3 sea zones away from each other it is in Japan’s favor. The US has to come to the Japanese, not the other way around and the first guy to move his fleet within 2 sea zones of the other is the one who puts his subs at the disadvantage of defending at 1. That guy is almost always the US player.
My strategy for the Japanese is to wait until the US player chooses to fight in the Pacific before I build any large amounts of non-TP navy and if he does build for the Pacific then I will match him ship for ship only when his fleet begins to rival mine because I start out with more capital ships and he has to take at least one turn to get to me.
IL, I think where our mindsets are fundamentally different is that I think the US going head to head with Japan is a good thing and you think it is a bad thing. You want to scare the US away and I want to encourage the US to come after Japan because I personally think that Germany/Italy vs. UK/Rus is favorable to the Axis. And if the US splits it’s income between the Atlantic and the Pacific then Japan can easily hold off the US and at the same time make territory gains with whatever income they have left over.
It’s the same mindset that I have in AAR and I will continue to think that way until someone proves conclusively that it is flawed.