@AndrewAAGamer I’m not suggesting players should only buy battleships; I’m just saying they still have value in the game. My personal preference is for a balanced navy. While I still buy 3-4 times more carriers, I like BB for amphibious assaults and to absorb the first hits in any battle.

…And if you’ve never gone up against a misguided player, you really need to meet my friends.

@AndrewAAGamer @Saber25 This game does a good job of illustrating the rise of the aircraft carrier and corresponding decline of the battleship in WWII. Andrew’s example (9 BB vs. 5 CV & 10 fighters) reinforces the idea. That said, battleships are not the overpriced underachievers one might think, and can be quite dangerous when employed by a savvy admiral.

Take another look at Andrew’s example. It seems BB are no match for CV and fighters, right? In a fight to the death, yes…but if I’m sending 9 BB up against 5 CV + 10 fighters, I’m only going to do so under the following conditions:

1. CV must not be within one space of a friendly territory (so the fighters from damaged carriers have no place to land and must be eliminated), and
2. BB will attack for one round, then retreat.

On average, 9 BB will score 6 hits in the first combat round, while the defenders will score 8. In this scenario, the defender knows he’ll lose 2 fighters for each CV that takes a hit, so his least bad option is to lose 4 fighters and 1 carrier. Meanwhile, my BB absorb the 8 hits without any change to my attack or defense strength and I retreat, safe in the knowledge that with just 6 fighters and 4 carriers, my opponent is unlikely to counterattack.

The moral of the story: Undamaged carriers with aircraft are quite valuable and dangerous, while damaged carriers are essentially overpriced, empty transports. Damaged battleships, on the other hand, are still battleships.

The issue with targeting ANZAC is, for me, an economic one. For Japan to acquire ANZAC’s 10 IPC/turn, they have to capture a total of seven territories. On the other hand, just four territories - Sumatra, Java, Borneo and Celebes - will net 20 IPC/turn for Japan. My alternative to your scenario is this:

J1 Move one transport and one sub from Japan to the Carolines.
J2 Declare war, then use transport + 1 INF from Carolines to take New Guinea. Also take Malaya as soon as possible (these actions deny ANZAC National Objectives, costing them 10 IPC/turn). Use naval forces in Carolines to take out ANZAC fleet.

On subsequent turns, park subs in sea zones 54, 62 and 63. This can reduce ANZAC income to as little as 3 IPC/turn, virtually taking them out of the fight without investing a significant chunk of the Japanese navy, as well as ground forces.

@SS-GEN I can’t remember where I read it, but it’s my understanding that one infantry unit = 25,000 men.

@Mr-Kell It said “Inspired by actual events,” which means, “something somewhat similar to this really happened, but we think our story is better than the truth.”

Greyhound, Tom Hanks’ adaptation of C.S. Forester’s The Good Shepherd, was originally supposed to be released last March. The wait is almost over: Greyhound hits theaters in North America on June 12. The trailer is below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmbK3TW1vk

1. This question is rather ambiguous. If you’re attacking with aircraft only (no land units), it’s not an amphibious assault. If you mean, “Can I conduct an amphibious assault without cruisers or battleships for shore bombardment?”, the answer is yes, you can.
2. When conducting an amphibious assault, you have to choose which aircraft will participate in any naval battle and which will participate in the land combat; they cannot do both. Any naval battle must be resolved before amphibious landings can take place.

@ABWorsham4 The more I read, the more I learn that American neutrality pre-Pearl Harbor was extremely nuanced, to say the least. Very interesting stuff.

@crockett36 said in Allied Playbook Draft v1.0:

Less the grab Solomons, Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas. More the 800 ships with a ton of sailors and 10000 marines. The strategic objective part is that you are putting so much pressure on the Japanese navy, fighting, losing, fighting, losing, fighting, winning that they cannot do what they usually do, infect the map like a virus. It’s the piece meal approach of Midway versus the “wait until I get a navy big enough to demolish the IJN.”

This is assuming a non Sealion game. This might look like an invasion of Iwo Jima. Collect a navy there. Get some bombers to harass the island and voila it’s the front line! Waves of metal coming at them every turn, with the advantage that you are able to land on the island and lose the carriers. Subs in reserve to take down the cap ships.

Russia can be assisted by the British because pressure is not as great as it normally is?! Could call it the Nimitz. He wanted to go directly to Japan.

Assuming the Japanese move in predictable ways (into China, SE Asia and the DEI), I like to do a limited island hopping campaign like this:

1. Take the Marshalls. This protects American transports off Hawaii from Japan-based bombers.
2. Take the Carolines. This forces the Japanese to take a more circuitous route to Australia and can be used by the Allies as a springboard to the Philippines, Borneo, FIC or Japan.
3. Take Iwo Jima. Build an air base on it, not for bombers (which don’t need it), but for fighters to protect the American fleet. Stack bombers on Iwo and hit the Japanese IC every turn.

While I’m doing the above, I also gradually build up a good-sized sub fleet to strangle Japan via convoy disruption…and you can usually accomplish steps 1-3 with about 3 fully loaded transports (plus the necessary surface warships, of course).

@ABWorsham4 I’m not familiar with False Flags, but I’ve read Mrs. Ferguson’s Tea Set, Japan and the Second World War: The Global Consequences Following Germany’s Sinking of the SS Automedon in 1940 by Eiji Seki. It’s an excellent account of the exploits of the German commerce raider Atlantis, and I found it fascinating as a Japanese perspective of WWII.