Posts made by Croggyl

@axis_roll:

@TimTheEnchanter:

I always like to read these kinds of topics to see which side the OP thinks has an advantage that needs to be neutralized.

OP = Opponent?

Original Poster

@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.

Do I need another final coat of matt laquer (finish/varnish; what’s the correct word for that)? Units will be touched very often…

@wodan46:

The Japanese fleet can’t simultaneously menace East Asia, hold off the American Fleet, AND protect newly built Japanese ships.

I’m beginning to suspect that the last is critical.  If US has a big stack of Bombers on Alaska/Stc/Sui, it can simply decimate anything Japan builds.  Perhaps a Sub/Bomber fleet, even.

I solved a problem of that kind in one of my last games with an IC on East Indies. Additional 15 IPC, sure, but it saved the japanese fleet and the whole game.
The US player had a big fleet in strike distance of japanese sea zone (Okinawa, Wake or Iwo Jima, I’m not sure), but not enough trannies to march into Japan. My fleet was at sz 35 (before India) because I had amphibious (re)take the IC there. The US fleet couldn’t reach East Indies at the turn I build the IC there, and next turn I move my fleet in and build additional navy pieces.

@Fighter:

then i send the remaining 3 fighters from 57 against the USbattleship in 53 supplemented with 1 more fighter from 61 and the destroyer from 51.

Do you attack the british fleet before India with one fighter only? Not at all?

In noncombatmove i move the 2 carriers from 57 to 51 and land the remaining fighters on teh 2 carriers there. and if the 5th fighter survives, then one gets to land on one of the japanese islands

I don’t like these move because of the possibility of US to strike these fleet with three fighters and the bomber. I feel uncomfortable to offer that CVs without naval fodder. If you got three hits at first round, wave your carrier(s) good bye.
And I have learned that I need my cruiser to attack at sea zone 50 (Philippines). Every time when I hold back my cruiser to bolster up the CVs at sea zone 51 or support amphibious operation elsewhere things get nasty at sea zone 50 … :|

@Fighter:

if japan build a fighter and a transporter in J1, then rembember that the US bomber i western US can reach unprotected transporters in the japan seazone and land in buryatia s.s.r. with the defence of potentially 7 russian inf. should japan then choose to try and smash the 7 inf + the bomber i would really screw up their “masterplan” for J2 as india/australie would become more difficult etc.

Move back one of that CV from Midway to sea zone 62 (Japanese sea zone) and land two fighters on it. Transporter should be safe now …

In my play group we use a little chart.
Contains a column for the land name or sea zone number and columns for each type of unit. For each country we use a block of rows and simply write in the number of units. It also contains a little header where we notice IPC on map and hold as cash for each country, and on the border we write which country contains flags.
After you fill that chart for two or three times you know the short cuts for country names. The chart can be filled within five minutes, and last time we restore the map within ten minutes.

@TimTheEnchanter:

It’s not correct that subs can’t attack each other.   It’s just that often, if there aren’t DDs in the mix, one side doesn’t want to and will submerge before any battle occurs. In the case mentioned, the defender could have submerged the sub, but chose to fight with it, probably intending to use it as fodder to protect the CA.

You are right!
I forgot that subs can used as fodder, because of that 1’s on sub defending I regulary don’t use subs as fodder and have seen only sub meetings in my last games.

@Bardoly:

Exactly, in 2 games recently already, the Russian sub has taken out both my German sub and the cruiser.  :-(

Correct me if I’m wrong: Subs can’t attack each other, because a sub can dive instead of rolling a dice, and both attacking and defending sub has first strike? So the definding sub could dive instead of rolling defending dice?

A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that if someone comes up with a successful “extreme” strategy, there’s usually an extreme counter-strategy for it.

I copy that.
And believe me, I felt quite uncomfortable to write one of my first posts at this group with some sort of “unbeatable strategy”. I’ve seen so many group newbies here doing that, and routinely got their posts pick to pieces … ;)

Of these, bombing an airfield on Choiseul or New Georgia sounds pretty attractive.  It seems the Japanese will be hard pressed to defend both.  Have all these strategies survived your playtesting?

Yes and no. Japan new units and repairing supply tokens are store temporarily at Choiseul. Japan can have one ore two aa gun at Choiseul and always can move fighters after the bombers, so that any bombing raids are hard, because with the ootb rules any hits from air combat are removed before naval/ground combat (the new rule variant with the airplane only air combat I haven’t try so far, maybe it helps).

If the Japanese are buying this many supply tokens, the US should have some benefit elsewhere.

Challenging, as the US player has to run with the Japanese airfield builds to hold step with victory points. Later the Japanese have many units at New Georgia which means the US pays a high price before amphibic assault while the artilley are firing at incoming ships.
Maybe the US can build only two airfields at Guadalcanal and bring more ground units. Maybe not. Maybe it will rain … :)

Understand me right: I’m not want to say that the US player has no chance. I’m not want to say that I have seen all possible moves and counters in the game. I’m not want to say that I have found an “unbeatable strategy”. But at my games it was a very, very difficult task to counter that japanese tactic.

CVs with newly build fighters are generally rapidly moved into action. The supply tokens for airfield construction mostly also moved via additional markers. After that I think the japanese move only critical transports (needed for repairing of possible damaged airfields to gain victory points). For US I tried to deploy the submarines (to get them to action at all). Can’t remember whether I move troop transports every move, sometimes yes, at least to get the tranny fleets into position.
Sorry for that vague information, my last AAG game is more than half a year away. Mostly played AAP and AA50 since then.

Average number of turns was five or six, I think. Correct me if I’m wrong: After first turn the japanese can have two airfield, is that right? After that two additional where build at turn two, the last at turn three. Then fifteen victory point should achieved at turn five, turn six latest.
Game is very short with that tactic.

Edit:
No, not all games have been Japanese victories. :)
At one or two time I tried to be aggressive with the japanese and get control of four islands. Lost two games with that.

Ah, interesting! Thank you for that info!

It would be nice to see the changes of the game during the creation and test process. Are any kind of that information available somewhere?

@frimmel:

It appears solid but I don’t see this as some sort of sure win situation for the Axis. Is the Axis implementing this strategy to a greater preponderence of victories?

Whenever I’ve seen the japanese fast airfield build by myself or against me I couldn’t win with the US.

I’ve play something around ten games (mostly against that tactic) and tried various counter:

• brute force: try to overun New Georgia and get control over the airfields

• strike against the main of japanese fleet at sea zone F to get additional victory points

• second player surprise strike (air and/or fighter only) against japanese aircraft carriers at sea zone B

• heavy submarine attack against same CVs at seazone B or against BB at sea zone F

Defeated. All times. Sometimes I could get additional victory points to equalize the japanese victory point advantage from the airfields, but maximal for two turns. Was never enough time to overrun New Georgia.

Perhaps not a solid analysis (too little games), but a first impression.
Hope that helps …

Frimmel, you are right! Both sides have the same distance.
What I mean is that the japanese transport fleet at sea zone F can bridge land units from Choiseul to New Georgia without moving. The us player need two fleets which are moving between New Georgia and Guadalcanal.

And the Japanese get an additional bomber at Formosa?
If I remember right that ships where sunk by land based japanese bombers …

I know that problem (look to http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10948.0 for a detailed description), and I don’t find a solution for the allies player until now.
The main problem seems that the japanese player has a shorter supply route to New Georgia and need one fleet of transporter less then the us player to support that island. And the us player has not enough time to clear New Georgia completely to get control of the two airfields, as the game ends very fast.

@atarihuana:

thats a very risky attack. (87% attacker looses all its unis) normally there would be
2CV 3ftr vs 3 ftr 1 bomb.

I know.
But if 3ftr 1bomb vs. 2CV 3ftr is 43% chance to lose one and 29% chance to lose two CV, if I interpret frood.net correctly. Economical benefit, as the US have more IPC than Japan and can replace that lost units easier.

Nevertheless - I have an unpleasant feeling to give my opponent the chance to attack a CV which have no naval support.

also the US will loose the carrier too next round…

Not necessarily. If US lose two ftr, the CV could move to sz 56 (pick up two new ftr there and meet with new naval units) or to the east coast via sz 20.

@a44bigdog:

[…]
I like to position the sea zone 57 carriers in 51.
[…]

Do you position that CV/fighters without additional naval units? Seems a bit to risky.

US can attack there with 3 fighters and bomber. Normally you lose only three fighters, but what if US get three hits at first round? Tricky question: Lose two fighters, one CV? Lose three fighters? You have to choose your losts before you know your hits. Lost three fighters may risky if you only get two hits. And if you lose the CV as third and an additional fighter later, you have lost 44 IPC and US lost only 42.

I think an IC in South Africa should only be build if Germany doesn’t take EGY or conquer it with less then two tanks.
Otherwise following scenario is possible:

• GER take EGY with two tanks left
• UK build IC in SAfr
• ITA take Trans-Jordan with tank/inf, move two inf from LYB to EGY, land fighter there
• GER tank blitz to Italien East Africa (IEA), land bomber at EGY
• UK build two tanks and (a) move one inf to RHO or (b) stack both inf in SAfr
• ITA bridge inf/tank/fighter to RHO (kill any british troops there) and open the way for GER
• GER attack SAfr with two tanks and bomber
• if GER not take SAfr, UK build two more tanks (should be three or four tanks there now)
• ITA strikes with inf, tank, fig, cruiser, battleship
  Could be enough to take that IC.

Option:
JAP take East Indies at first turn with 2 inf, sink the uk ships before indian coast (sz 35) and land two fighter at CV at sz 37. Take Madagascar at turn two and strikes to SAfr before UK3 to kill any units left there (possibly take it) so that at worst case after UK3 only two tanks are there.
The two japanese fighters could land at IEA at JAP2 to free that CV for the pacific theatre.

Disadvantages:

• german bomber is missing at european theatre for four turns
• UK could re-attack EGY with two inf and bomber and kill german tank(s)
• ITA must take Trans-Jordan at ITA1 to open suez channel
• (most of) italien navy is out of position for Mediterranian Sea after ITA3
• JAP have to bring CV/fighters that may needed at pacific theatre
• UK could bring australien troops via Cape Horn and take SAfr back at UK3; ITA may not have enough troops to take SAfr again

I’ve seen that scenario (without JAP) in my last game. GER take EGY with art and two tanks, uk build SAfr IC, GER blitz to IEA, UK stacks two inf at RHO, ITA clear RHO, UK build two inf, GER take SAfr.

@Cmdr:

1)  2 infantry, artillery, armor, fighter, bomber to Egypt

Why not attack Egypt without the fighter and add it to the SZ 15 attack? You should win Egypt with artillery and tank left in both cases, and the SZ battle seems much safer now…