Not to beat a dead horse, but there is one more thing I need to try, before I can conclude with certainty that this is doesn’t work. (I have received some really good PM’s with some great ideas and feedback).
I’m ready for a rematch whenever you are. Do you mind letting me be Japan one more time? 
Stoney229:
Yes, I did figure that out after taking a closer look. I have learned a lot playing this out from Japans point of view (I def feel like I could have played better). Attack U.S. first is just emerging in our group, up until now I/we have been focusing on India/DEI.
Yes, escorted bombing raids would be catastrophic for Japan, and play perfectly into U.S. defense.
The test games for me where to see first hand (I know plenty of people said it’s not possible) how/what is possible for Japan in 3 turns (hopefully it helped others also). Sort of a baseline to progress from. That being said, the progression would be to test bluffs (forcing U.S. to “respect” a possible invasion) and/or tieing up the U.S.
I agree, it all comes down to: Is India crush the most effective/efficient strat no matter what or is their any other possible option(s).
I still feel like if Western U.S. falls, a Major complex in Asia + plus U.S. points will allow Japan to catch up.
Thanks a ton for your P40 map, its awesome!
Thanks as always for the quick response.
Sooo, 3 hops for a plane to go from Aleutian to Alaska?
Well, thanks for the positive feedback. 
I know it sounds so cliche, but if I/We helped anyone be better prepared to counter this strat or sparked ideas for a new or a progression of this strat that proves successful, then that’s awesome.
@RogertheShrubber:
I have been looking at this over the past week and it does look intriguing, but I also believe proper US play should diffuse it. I am curious on some of the opening Jap and US moves however. One simple thing I saw at first (Although not a game breaker by any means) was that when he moved his CV’s into defensive positions at Hawaii and seazone 1 he left the Tac’s on board. I would have non-commed a fighter on all my CV’s for added defensive power. Also why bring the loaded tranny from TRUK to Hawaii, was that just to entice a response in the area more so then seazone 1. Otherwise I personally would have sent it to sz 6 turn one with the 3 purchased trannies. Lastly, I thought the strat involved a turn 2 minor IC purchase on Jap 2 for Alaska? Just inquiring, I may have read some of the posted moves wrong, so correct me if I interpreted it incorrectly.
I used the Tac’s to attack the Battleship and Destroyer that were in SZ 26. I went into that game with the pretence that I must invade Western U.S. on turn 3 no matter what. This forced me to make several “unoptimized” moves that normally I wouldn’t have made. For example the Battleship and Destroyer could have blocked Sea lanes preventing a Rd 3 invasion so i was “forced” to sink them. I agree the transport would have been better off in SZ 6 (this was my first go at this opening move). The minor IC wouldn’t make a difference in a round 3 invasion, but I’m exploring the long term effect of having it their.
Can infantry in Aleutian Isles “walk” into Alaska?
I know it sounds silly, but in past A&A games (maps) their have been instances where this was possible, even though it looked like it wasn’t.
Also, if there is an Air base in Aleutian, can planes be scrambled to defend?
I assume it can’t be both ways, but I’m not sure?
The progression of the Invade Western U.S. in 3 rounds thing (it’s really difficult to pull off in 3rds imo) is to test the pros and cons of possibly hitting U.S. hard early and then “tieing” them up in Alaska/Aleutian Isles with a “token” force.
After hitting them hard, I was considering the possibilities of Escorted Bombing raids + Subs in SZ 10. Then take care of business elsewhere…
Gamer I’m REALLY interested to see how our game turns out.
A battle/game that hinges on AA rolls is not a clear cut victory either way imo…
Att:
Rolls: 9@4 12@3 1@1; Total Hits: 129@4: (6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5)12@3: (4, 2, 2, 1, 5, 2, 3, 1, 1, 4, 6, 3)1@1: (2)
Def:
Rolls: 11@4 3@3 12@2 3@1; Total Hits: 911@4: (1, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2, 6, 2, 2, 6, 6)3@3: (2, 5, 2)12@2: (3, 6, 6, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 6, 4, 6, 6)3@1: (5, 3, 6)
Att:
Rolls: 9@4 12@3 1@1; Total Hits: 99@4: (6, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 5, 3, 2)12@3: (5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 6, 5, 4, 3)1@1: (4)
Def:
Rolls: 11@4 3@3 12@2 3@1; Total Hits: 1511@4: (2, 5, 1, 5, 1, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 1)3@3: (1, 6, 5)12@2: (2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5, 1, 6, 3, 5, 3, 1)3@1: (4, 1, 4)
AA:
Rolls: 1@1 11@1 9@1; Total Hits: 41@1: (6)11@1: (4, 2, 5, 4, 6, 1, 5, 5, 1, 6, 5)9@1: (4, 3, 6, 2, 3, 2, 1, 6, 1)
Rolls: 1@1 11@1 9@1; Total Hits: 21@1: (6)11@1: (3, 3, 5, 4, 4, 6, 5, 5, 6, 4, 2)9@1: (1, 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3)
Rolls: 1@1 11@1 9@1; Total Hits: 11@1: (3)11@1: (2, 6, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4)9@1: (6, 2, 2, 3, 2, 6, 2, 1, 4)
Test
Att: 4inf, 2arty, 1fghtr
Rolls: 2@1 4@2 1@3; Total Hits: 22@1: (3, 5)4@2: (3, 4, 6, 1)1@3: (2)
Test
Att: 4inf, 2arty, 1fghtr
Rolls: 2@1; Total Hits: 02@1: (3, 5)Rolls: 4@2; Total Hits: 24@2: (1, 1, 3, 5)Rolls: 1@3; Total Hits: 01@3: (6)
@The:
(I really hope that it doesn’t work b/c that would honestly ruin the game).
Totally Agree.
I got the ball rolling.
Gwlachmai:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17513.0
gamerman01:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17514.0
The map is good. I’m having a prob getting the Toolbar window to show in ABattlemap, any suggestions?
I will post 1 map for both, sometime tonight.
Do you know how the play by forum works, and do you have the battlemap downloaded? If not gamerman can point you at some links that will describe how it all works. I can do it too, but, you’ll have to put up with Mr. Awesome drool.
Yes and Yes.
I like having the board setup too, it helps me see things from a “different” angle.
Lol, sorry about that.
I think it would be awesome to play 2 games at once.
I am busy atm, give me a couple hours to get home, setup my board, make some tweaks, and examine variations (for example I might try basically the same opening move with some subtle differences); then I will start the games.
I appreciate u guys taking the time to work on this with me.
gamerman01: Feel free to make your moves at your leisure, it’s all good.
For the sake of every reader of this thread, please do play a game with this strat. As Tragedy said, it’s an “all-in” strat. I am inclined to think it could be stopped with a high rate of chance, but then I haven’t played this version of A&A that long, and it’s never been tried in my games.
Tragedy, if he won’t do it, I would like to try to defend against it in PBF with you as Japan - again - just to help you, me, and everyone else assess the viability of this radical strat.
The point someone made earlier about WUS only being worth 10 is silly. It’s worth 50 to the WUS, and if the US is out of the game that early, this game is unwinnable by the Allies (to answer your question, Tragedy)
Yeah dude, I will play anyone that is interested. The invitation isn’t only for Gwlachmai.
I’m not here to beat my chest and spin this as an amazing I Win Button. Honestly I really hope it is easy to counter. I’m interested in experimenting with the progression of this tactic and see what it is capable of. As far as beating a competent/alert opponent with it, everyone knows exactly what I’m going to do. 
I don’t think it really matters if you take Alaska back as long as you build a solid defense. Unless the US player doesn’t see it coming, a move against the Western US is a bad strat.
The pros and cons of not taking Alaska back are debatable imo. The combination of Escorted Bombing Raids and Japan subs in S.Z.10 can be a massive economic disruption and really ties the U.S. up logistically.
If Western U.S. falls do you feel Allies can still win?
This is a all or nothing strat. Japan is “all in” on round 3. Either they take Western U.S. and essentially win imo, or they fail and have wasted their resources to a point they can’t recover from. There is no middle ground or stalling tactics.
Which leads to the next natural progression of this strat (I’ve been play A&A vs. this player for a looong time, and he has always been the most aggressive player at the table). At some point he will try to hit Western U.S. with everything on the board on Round 3. At the very least I would like to be prepared in the event it does happen.
I’m 99% sure I can tweak the Japan strat to bring more then enough to beat: 11 Fighters, 3 Tac, 1 Tank, 1 Art, 1 Mech, 13 Inf, Couple Bombers. (Approximate numbers from memory)
I will think about it some more and post later.
If you would like to play a forum game so you can show me why this is a bad strat that would be great. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I’m saying show me.
The “That should never happen, It’s easy to counter” comments with not much backing it up are getting old.
Did you build that minor IC in alaska? Is this legal placement? I think you may have edited out the fact you placed it in Alaska, but I think it was in your original post.
Huh?
I have edited out nothing in any post.
As Mino1124 said, Minor in Alaska is legal.
My question is:
How do you pry Alaska back from Japan when they take it on turn 1, along with British Columbia and use boats to block crucial Sea Zones?
And yes their will be a minor complex their at the end of turn 2. Which wasn’t even needed or used in the game I played.
The suggestion of 5 infantry, 4 fighters seems the most logical. I’m not sure if it will be enough. I’m not looking to fight a battle that depends on how well I roll the AA gun.
The Japan strat that was used can be tweaked to allow more planes to hit Western U.S. on turn 3. Japan could afford to use less in Asia and buy more on turn 2 then what was done in the game I played. I guess what I’m asking is, why not go bare minimal planes in Asia?
I agree, attacking the Japan fleet in S.Z. 10 with the U.S. fleet + Planes would prolly work.
Which got me thinking; What if the Japan Fleet in S.Z.6 moves to S.Z.2, and blocks S.Z.1 and 9 with Destroyers? It seems like that would cause problems for the U.S. fleet. They can’t really attack, and if they move to Hawaiian Isles they can be blocked from getting back to S.Z.10. Thoughts?
Taking back British Columbia and more importantly Alaska before the planes can land (Complex Built) is the key, the U.S. player couldn’t find a way to do it, and honestly I had no good suggestions for him. I don’t think Trading British Columbia will stop an imminent J3 invasion.
As far as Asia goes, (I was playing U.K. /China) I had the U.K. stacked in Yunnan /w China. I was planning on taking Kwangsi on U.K. 3 and then take back Kwangtung (Japan consolidated in Kwangtung). I also had a Mech and Tank in the pipeline so I can start blitzing through Asia. I don’t really see what I could do differently in 2 turns. Japan bought a Major complex on J3 to place in Kiangsu (lol). China was stacking with U.K. and I had a couple infantry moving north to take back lost territories.
If Western U.S. goes down and Japan collects U.S. points, asking U.K./ ANZAC to win the game by conquering Japan is a tall order imo. Especially with a Major Complex in Kiangsu and a boat load of points to spend.
Fighters can only scramble from islands. The game defines islands as a single territory completely surronded by water. For example you can scramble fighters from Hawaii, but, not one of the two New Guinea territories.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Does that apply to Japan on a Korea assault?
Back on Topic:
The U.S. player didn’t scramble anyway so its moot. (I will be the first to admit some rules slip through the cracks during a 4 hour game of heavy drinking.)
Is it worth trading British Columbia back and forth in this scenario?
or Just turtle in Western until production catches up?
I really should not respond to these threads.
^ lulz. Why not? If its that far beneath you, please don’t feel obligated.
Try it out in a forum game, I promise you it will not work.
Never said it would.
US should have bought 5 infantry turn 1 and 5 infantry, 4 fighters and a tank on turn 2.
Thank you for adding something of value to this topic, I will try that.
US fighters cannot scramble over SZ 10 (that alone causes me to question the wisdom of these tactics)
Can u elaborate on this point please? (Spare me the I’m Mr. Awesome drool, if u don’t mind.)
nor should the US fleet have been there. They should have been safely out of reach in Hawaii…
Agreed.
This weeks game was very interesting and different from how most of the games have been going. The Japan player focused on taking Western U.S. instead of India.
Here is how it played out:
J1:
Purchase:
3 Transports
Combat Moves:
I’m not going to detail what happened in and around Asia. Basically it was pretty standard. Yunnan, Kwangtung were capped. The U.K. ships in S.Z. 37 were sunk, and the Philippines was attacked by Caroline Fleet but not capped due to horrible dice rolls by Japan player. U.S. Transport in S.Z. 26 was sunk by a Submarine.
1 Inf/1 Transport -> British Columbia
2 Inf/ 1 Transport -> Alaska
Noncombat Moves:
Japan Fleet -> S.Z. 1
1 Destroyer -> S.Z. 9
2 Fighters, 1 Tac (I think) Manchuria -> Japan
U.S. 1:
Purchase:
1 Fighter
2 Infantry
Combat Moves:
None
Noncombat Moves:
Planes in Hawaiian Isles -> Western U.S.
Planes on Carrier -> Western U.S.
Anzac 1:
Purchase:
1 Fighter
Noncombat:
4 fighters -> Hawaiian Isles
J2:
Purchase:
Naval Base, Air Strip, Minor Complex (Japan player said this was a waste, and will be tweaked)
Combat Moves:
Japan Fleet S.Z. 1 (+ 2 Tac, 2 Fighters from Japan; Landing on Carriers)-> S.Z. 10 (2 Transports stayed in S.Z. 1). U.S. player didn’t scramble. The U.S. fleet was wiped out. In hind sight the fleet should have moved, but I don’t think it would have made a difference either way.
Philippines Falls.
Noncombat Moves:
5 Fighters, 3 Tac, 2 Bombers, + 2 Fighters 2 Tac originally on carriers -> Alaska
3 Transports /w AA Gun, 1 Tank, 4 Inf -> Alaska
2 Bombers from Asia -> Japan
Unit Mobilization:
Minor Complex, Airbase, Naval Base all placed in Alaska. (Not really needed/Never used).
U.S. 2:
Purchase:
5 Fighters
2 Inf
No Combat/Noncombat moves. Not many options at this point. Considered trading British Columbia.
Anzac 2:
4 Fighters -> Western U.S.
J3:
Combat Moves:
Amphibious Assault on Western U.S.:
1 Battleship Bombardment
1 Cruiser Bombardment
4 Bombers, 11 Fighters, 7 Tac (Maybe 8?), 1 Tank, 7 inf
AA Gun Kills: 1 Bomber, 1 Tac, 1 Fighter
U.S. defends with:
13 fighters total (9 U.S., 4 ANZAC), 3 tacs, 2 Bombers, 1 Tank, 1 Mech, 1 Art, 7 Inf.
Japan caps Western U.S. with 1 Tank, 1 Bomber remaining. On turn 3. Both sides had “average” dice rolls.
Allies concede. Chine and U.K. were in “good” shape in Asia, but felt it was inevitable.
This left the Allies scratching their heads, wondering what they could have done better.
Obviously purchases is the first questionable thing.
Also the decision to not scramble came into question but seemed futile at the time. The Japanese navy had a good amount of fodder.
Thoughts/Feedback?
This was written from memory so their might be some minor discrepancies.
Edit: I’m not suggesting this is a 100% win for Japan by any means. It is risky, and the dice are a major factor. I’m interested in how to deal with this strat better.
Income is collected in the Collect Income phase. If the US is attacked by Japan on J1, the US will still have 17 IPCs to spend on US1.
Thank you for the quick response.
That is what I thought (how we have been playing), just needed a confirmation. There was a heated debate last night. :lol: