Why is taking Hawaii a bad strategy for Japan?


  • Why is taking Hawaii a bad strategy for Japan?

    I have seen that mentioned before and I don’t understand it>  :?


  • @Shakespeare:

    Why is taking Hawaii a bad strategy for Japan?

    US buys bombers. Many of them. Strategical bombing raid every round.

    Let’s look at the numbers:
    US could have 5 bombers ready for bombing at round 2 (lets say one shout down by aa fire, average damage 14), 8 at round 3 (one shot done, damage 24.5), 12 at round 4 (damage 35), 14 at round 5 (damage 42). Japan should have ten victory point now (4+ 4-1 + 4-2 + 4-3 + 4-4).

    If Japan will buy fighters to interrupt the strategical bombing raid, US can buy some fighters instead of a bomber to get that defenders down. Result should be the same, only a few rounds later. Japan should never get close to 22 victory points.

    From that point on US will bomb as many or more victory points away then Japan will get. US now can build fleet and ships, bombers only for replacing the loss to aa fire. US can now push Japan back slowly, without any time pressure.

    I think, an Indian rush is not possible, because the carriers gets out of range while needed as landing place for the fighters that attack at Hawai. Australia should be safe also, US can use it’s starting trannys to bridge troops over and also could bring in the fighters.

    Hope, that’s correct and helps.


  • To put it more succinctly because the US will be able to bomb away Japan’s victory points.


  • I had never thought about that!

    The next time I’m the USA. I’ll have to abandon Hawaii to set up the Japanese player! :evil:

  • '17 '16 Customizer

    I have found that the US has enough starting units in Western US and Line Island to to give a good go at Hawaii on it’s 1st round.


  • Though it is ridiculous that the SBR damage is not limited to IPC values in this game. No way could Japan have been SBR’ed to oblivion by bombing Hawaii!

    :lol: :roll:


  • Krieghund had this to say in another thread:

    @Krieghund:

    SBRs against all ICs were unlimited in Classic (1984), and that didn’t change in Europe (1999) or Pacific (2001).  It wasn’t until Revised (2004) was published that any kind of limits on SBR damage were introduced.

    I agree that it doesn’t make any sense that an IC with limited production should allow unlimited SBR exposure.  Many people, including myself, have played with house rules for many years that limited SBR damage to such ICs.

    So, when Pacific was being developed, I’m guessing that little or no thought was given to the impact of SBR damage limits on game balance.  Those rules were probably simply inherited from the previous games and taken for granted.

    It might be interesting to see what the impact of limiting SBR damage would be.  However, I can only assume that it would benefit Japan most, and Japan already has the advantage in the game.  You would certainly want to limit only ICs with limited production, as limiting damage to “home” ICs would curtail the US’s ability to reduce Japanese VPs through SBRs.

    I’m afraid that’s the best answer that I can give you, since I wasn’t involved in A&A in any official capacity back in those days.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 15
  • 4
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1
  • 5
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts