North American Axis Strategy - Kill US First - Legal Or Not?

[Karl7]

Unless you totally drop the ball, how can and Kill USA First ever work?

Japan moves to Hawaii, the US pulls back to the WUS, and puts 2 dd blockers out to stop attack.  USA build troops in EUS to counter Germany advance.

UK declares war against Japan.

The end.

[baron Münchhausen]

Does SZ 13, 14 and 26 are out for Japan until war is declared?

[zooooma]

@Karl7:

Japan moves to Hawaii, the US pulls back to the WUS, and puts 2 dd blockers out to stop attack.  USA build troops in EUS to counter Germany advance.

This.  The rule does not keep Japan out of striking range (like some people think it ought to), but it does ensure intervening sea zones that USA can block.  Essentially it allows America to thwart a landing - but not if they just sit in Hawaii.

@Baron:

Does SZ 13, 14 and 26 are out for Japan until war is declared?

No.  The only sea zones of limits are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
This gives America enough space to defend themselves.

It also means Japan cannot invade Canada without declaring war on the US before actually invading.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

ROBOTS!!
Yeah, France could have robots. They attack at 5 and defend at 5. Movement 2. The only way you can kill them is with a Japanese Kamikaze at 1. Replace all of the French infantry in the starting setup with robots.

Sounds silly doesn’t it? Not quite as silly as parking the Japanese fleet in Pearl Harbour in 1940 given the tensions between the 2 nations, but silly nonetheless. If you can exploit a grammatical error in the rule book and feel justified about it don’t bother ever asking me for a game. I only play people who play the game honourably. Pathetic.

[Hunter Jones]

Lets add Russian land Battleships, they can move 10 and can only attack Berlin at a roll of 6 or less and take 20 hits to destroy, and Russia gets 20 of them. Again, not as silly as parking the Japanese fleet on SZ 26.

[General 6 Stars]

@SS:

The rule should be no Axis naval pieces can stop next to any US mainland, Island territory and Convoy boxes while US is neutral. If they do it’s an act of war !

:-D

[Ichabod]

Again for the record…as an American, my “National Pride” isn’t hurt that an actual NA or Kill Washington First strategy could actually be done in a “game.” This is a game. Yes, what’s written in the rule book matters. But I don’t believe that the creators of the game (it’s not just LH), realized that the way the rule was written Japan can park it’s Navy in SZ26.

Both for gamism reasons, and realism it just flat out doesn’t make sense for an entire enemy Navy to be permitted to park itself right next to the US Navy’s most important Naval Base in the Pacific Ocean. Regarding comments about the conspiracy stuff and the American public who didn’t want to go to war. That has nothing to do with the Naval Commander on the ground and the Sailors, Airmen, and Marines there. AS WOULD MOST OTHER NATIONS, they would have came out ready to fight for their own self-defense and US territory had they known there was an enormous battle group coming. They might not have fired the “first” shots in a full fledged battle…but that’s besides the point. Regarding the size of the sea zones. Yes, they’re huge. But they’re pretty darn close to an area that a navy could patrol; which means for gamism reasons, make no sense that any nation’s Navy could pass through undetected for a very long time. At the battle of midway, navies fought each other with their aircraft who had to locate each from over hundreds/thousands of miles of ocean away without modern GPS and real-time satellite imagery. The Pearl Harbor attack was a significant achievement by the Imperial Japanese Navy. They showed up north of Pearl Harbor right at the early morning hours and then immediately launched an attack and brought the US into the war. They didn’t “sit” in sz 26 for an entire turn like their friends exchanging military attaches.

A rule was written which expressed a PURPOSE of restricting the Japanese from being too close. However, the wording did not meet the purpose because of interpretation. The Japanese CAN land troops on the Western US on turn 2 and or attack the sea zone adjacent to the US on turn 2. What’s the point of supposed restriction then? Might as well have not written it all together. Someone said that the US could put up blockers in like 5 different sea zone. Uh…no they can’t as the US doesn’t start out with a fleet of destroyers. Even if Japan waited till J3 to attack, there’s still not enough blockers. And by the way, the Germans are stacked at Gibraltar. And if you don’t know what’s coming…as in started buying lots of ground/air units on US 1, instead of thinking to buy all ships on US 1 to defend SZ 10 (due to the approaching Japanese fleet), they you’re way behind.

Yes, the rules allow Japan to station their navy in sz 26 or others technically not “within” 2 spaces. But they are still within a travel distance of 2 spaces to Alaska or mainland US. So we have rule intended to keep the Japanese fleet back, but not really keep them back? People saw the worded loophole and correctly pointed out that a fleet can be parked in Sea Zone 26. It’s ridiculous.

Lastly, if someone ever tries this on me again, they’ll lose the game. I did pretty much everything else right, western allies DOW on turn 1, Russia was a monster…ect. except I didn’t buy and position the US stuff right.

[Ichabod]

@SS:

@SS:

The rule should be no Axis naval pieces can stop next to any US mainland, Island territory and Convoy boxes while US is neutral. If they do it’s an act of war !

:-D

Agreed. But the rule book currently already has most of those restrictions in place except SZ 26.

I’d want the rule book to state that while at Peace, no Japanese ships cannot be 1 or 2 movement points away from sea zones adjacent to Canada, Alaska, and the Mainland US. Additionally no Japanese ships while at peace can remain in SZ 26.

[General 6 Stars]

Only restriction I see is Alaska and West mainland. Just saying that ain’t most in rules.

[Kreuzfeld]

stop being weird GHG. There are so many things in these games that are silly and unhistorical. It is weird that you accept all the other stuff, but think japanese fleet outside hawaii is what breaks the game.

1. there isn’t a single unit in the game that isn’t ridicolus compared to history
2. the economy and looting of captals is insane
3. the infrastructure of the game makes no sense.
4. the size of the areas are completely ahistoric

[Hunter Jones]

@Kreuzfeld:

stop being weird GHG. There are so many things in these games that are silly and unhistorical. It is weird that you accept all the other stuff, but think japanese fleet outside hawaii is what breaks the game.

1. there isn’t a single unit in the game that isn’t ridicolus compared to history
2. the economy and looting of captals is insane
3. the infrastructure of the game makes no sense.
4. the size of the areas are completely ahistoric

you are right with those 4 things, however, the Japanese fleet cannot simply waltz into SZ 26 without being at war w/ the US. And have you noticed, it only said this in the ENGLISH version of the rulebook as one of the first replies pointed out? GHG is not being weird, he’s trying to prove a point to you guys and its going completely over your head.

[zooooma]

@Ichabod:

A rule was written which expressed a PURPOSE of restricting the Japanese from being too close.

What’s “too close”?  Japan can attack USA from SZ 26, but only if the American player chooses to let themselves be attacked (by not blocking the intervening sea zones).

Maybe there could be good reason to let them slip through if you think the invasion will fail and you want an early DOW?  That’s up the the player.

@Ichabod:

So we have rule intended to keep the Japanese fleet back, but not really keep them back?

Apparently, we have a rule intended not to prevent the Japanese from “sneaking up” on the US, but to give the US enough of a buffer to intercept the invasion.

The rule doesn’t “keep the Japanese fleet back”.  But it ables America to do just that.

@Ichabod:

Both for gamism reasons, and realism it just flat out doesn’t make sense for an entire enemy Navy to be permitted to park itself right next to the US Navy’s most important Naval Base in the Pacific Ocean…

… Regarding the size of the sea zones. Yes, they’re huge. But they’re pretty darn close to an area that a navy could patrol; which means for gamism reasons, make no sense that any nation’s Navy could pass through undetected for a very long time.

Visually the width of SZ 26 appears to be no less than 25% of the distance between Japan and Western USA.  This is a bit of stretch to be considered “right next to Hawaii”.  It’s not even an issue of USA knowing they are there.  It’s an issue of whether their presence (in so large an area) would trigger a DOW. Seems unlikely considering:

@taamvan:

One of the last islands in the Hawaii chain is French Frigate Shoals, and the Japanese in real life lurked right there with ships subs and seaplanes, right before and right after PH.

By the time it’s apparent those ships are heading further East, it’s already Japan’s next turn.  In this game you cannot intercept a fleet on your opponents combat movement phase.

Anyway, it’s silly to argue too much about realism in this game, and it’s silly to second guess designer intent.  I’m only posting because I want to read GHG’s next enlightening and persuasive analogy to giving the RCN an armada of unstoppable flying undead pirate ships.

@Hunter:

GHG is not being weird, he’s trying to prove a point to you guys and its going completely over your head.

Not even close.  He is trying to assert a point.  Trying to prove something entails presenting an actual argument.

[Karl7]

WOW~ !  :-o

This is a lot of rancor over a move that is itself insanely speculative. So what if Japan moves to 26 without declaring war?  The US falls back and deploys blockers.  Game over. The Japanese have no option now but to attack or have their fleet way out of position for many turns!

Taking Hawaii Japan’s first turn at war is a huge gift to the US.  It sits right next to the US major factory, and the US can dump huge amounts of stuff to take it back, forcing Japan to respond in kind if they want to even try to keep it.  Meanwhile, the Allies are moving in for the kill in the rest of Asia.

Saying it’s stupid that the US can’t declare ware if Japan moves to 26 is unfounded.  If the Pearl Harbor strike fleet had been discovered on its way, do you think the US would unilaterally declare war?

I doubt it.

Sure, the US would demand answers, go on high alert and deploy the fleet in a defensive mode, which would have made the strike pointless.  The Pearl Harbor strike force only had modest surface escort and would have been no match for a US fleet alert to its presence, with the 2 carriers and hundreds of land based planes now buzzing around.

[zooooma]

@Hunter:

And have you noticed, it only said this in the ENGLISH version of the rulebook as one of the first replies pointed out?

I’m not seeing this.  Which reply?

But is it unusual that an English speaker who buys an English game printed in English with English rules should use the English rulebook as their source?

Am I to locate a translated rulebook, have it translated back, and then override the original rulebook where applicable?

[Panther]

@Hunter:

And have you noticed, it only said this in the ENGLISH version of the rulebook as one of the first replies pointed out?

“Only” in the English version of the rulebook? I am aware of only one official rulebook, and this is the one provided by AH, English for sure.

Please point me to any translated versions you might have in mind. Would be interesting to see and maybe an interesting read…

[zooooma]

@P@nther:

“Only” in the English version of the rulebook? I am aware of only one official rulebook, and this is the one provided by AH, English for sure.

Surely Hasbro’s rulesbook translation team are better suited to reflect the designer intent than those hacks who wrote the actual rules!  :?

This thread is just not sane.

[Ichabod]

@Karl7:

Taking Hawaii Japan’s first turn at war is a huge gift to the US.� � It sits right next to the US major factory, and the US can dump huge amounts of stuff to take it back, forcing Japan to respond in kind if they want to even try to keep it.� � Meanwhile, the Allies are moving in for the kill in the rest of Asia.

Karl, I was the guy who started this post. I think you’re missing a few details in the conversation. For instance, I started this post because I thought that the Japanese placement of ships on turn 1 and or prior to DOW was illegal. That was the main reason. Second, I never said Japan never took Hawaii initially. In fact they hit the US fleet at SZ10 first and landed on Alaska, but that was to remove a NO from the US without losing any units in exchange. Hawaii is initially ignored. But after the US was brought into the war the US couldn’t afford to purchase 10 ground units for western US because Germany was ready to strike Washington. If fact, I had to abandon western US and move what was remaining to the capital. They ignored Hawaii as Japan needed every ground and air unit for their main targets.

Anyways, regarding this strategy, it did catch me off guard and my first thoughts were like, this guy is throwing the game :) Some of the things you mentioned as the answer(s) to best deter this strategy didn’t work after having played against it. I did some of the stuff you mentioned. Also, you’re speaking from the point of view from the outside, not experiencing it. The Axis sacked Washington 2x which meant game over; the 1st time was by Japan, the 2nd time by Germany. This strategy will only work by surprise and expected “normal” responses. I agree though that it would now be easy to defeat.

If this happens to you, you won’t have the time nor be able to build enough blockers with the US on the Western side unless your blocking with carriers, battleship, cruisers…expensive ships because you don’t start out with enough destroyers. The strategy calls for 3 Japanese fleets to approach completely spread out. Only one Japanese fleet is in SZ 26. Japan is able to bring enough cannon fodder to hit whatever they need to and mostly take plane hits to save ships and non-com other units through sea zones that the US could block. It’s a gambit, so of course the Japanese player is going to sacrifice a lot of air up front. They start out with 20 planes.

From going through the file with other good players, we agreed that the best solution would be to retreat all vessels to the Atlantic and use that to defend Washington and SE MEXICO from an Italian landing. This slows down the German threat because they won’t have a large navy, just usually 1 carrier, maybe 1 battleships, 1 cruiser, and maybe 1 other war ships (plus lots of transports). Interestingly enough, Italy landed on Mexico to create a landing spot for German planes. The US Pacific Navy brought over, plus a few more things would be enough to defend Washington. But your initial instinct would be to not retreat completely out of the Pacific if Japan ever approaches the US west coast on turn 1. But it’s best to abandon out of the Pacific (Japan is way behind anyways, because the UK Pac/ANZAC are going to DOW on turn 1). On the western side you buy all air/ground and stack all the units that can get to Western US (tank from Washington) and central US units there because Japan doesn’t start out with very many transports in range. But this is still tough because everyone here decided that Japan is NOT RESTRICTED, so their carrier bases planes are within range of hitting the US mainland (not just SZ10) and then non-combat 1 movement space into zones cleared (even if you left blockers). You will sacrifice Hawaii to them, by letting them walk on, but that’s ok as everyone noted, this is a horrible strategy for the Axis if it fails. If I see Japan do this move, with the Canadian minor IC, I will start buying some units on UK 1 to help defend Washington besides London. So on UK 1, my purchase would be all ground, some for Canada, and most for London.

Now you might think that this strategy really sets the allies behind because of all of these defensive purchases. It wouldn’t because in other areas the rest of the allies are raging.

I have the triplea file if you want it. Send me a PM. Unfortunately my file save only goes through round 3, but its enough to show you how the Axis started approaching Washington. I wish I had the whole thing. At first I thought Sea Lion was coming, then Cairo, then I realized it was Washington, which made my critical US purchases wrong and out of order. Also, I initially thought I could defend Hawaii which wasn’t a good idea and wasted time.

[Karl7]

Yeah, I get it.

My point about Hawaii was only if they end up not going after the US, then taking Hawaii is the fall back.

I guess if Japan approached in spread out formation, you’d have to block 3 sea zones, so you’d have to lose a cruiser to fully block a landing in WUS.

Why wouldn’t that have worked to trip them up?  If you stop them from being able to sack WUS turn 2, isn’t that game over?

Also, you only need to block 2 sea zones on the atlantic side if they are launching from Gibraltar.  Doable if you got a UK ship handy.

Finally, you’ve got 52 bucks US1, not to mention 5 ftrs, 1 tacb you can stack around for defense. You also got 4UK land units to help out. The German’s had three transports w/6 units for landing?  Not really much if you stack EUS w/10 land + 3/4 fighters and 2 AA.

I’m willing to be wrong on this.

Also, let me clear, getting caught off guard happens to all of us.  Going for the US is an all or nothing move, so I could see how one would discount the possibility.

That being said, I wonder if capturing the US would still result in an Axis win. By the time it would work (round 3/4?), I would think the other Allies have become monsters with Russia and UK closing in on Germany for the Kill and Japan close to completely knocked off Asia.

If anyone wants to try it, I’ll agree to play a straight up OOB G40 2nd as the allies on triple a.  We could agree to some conditions, i.e.  moves I can’t make as the allies to make the attack even feasible.

PM me if interested.

[Ichabod]

@Karl7:

Yeah, I get it.

I guess if Japan approached in spread out formation, you’d have to block 3 sea zones, so you’d have to lose a cruiser to fully block a landing in WUS.

Why wouldn’t that have worked to trip them up?�  If you stop them from being able to sack WUS turn 2, isn’t that game over?

Also, you only need to block 2 sea zones on the atlantic side if they are launching from Gibraltar.�  Doable if you got a UK ship handy.

Finally, you’ve got 52 bucks US1, not to mention 5 ftrs, 1 tacb you can stack around for defense. You also got 4UK land units to help out. The German’s had three transports w/6 units for landing?�  � Not really much if you stack EUS w/10 land + 3/4 fighters and 2 AA.

I’m willing to be wrong on this.� Â

Also, let me clear, getting caught off guard happens to all of us.�  Going for the US is an all or nothing move, so I could see how one would discount the possibility.� Â

That being said, I wonder if capturing the US would still result in an Axis win. By the time it would work (round 3/4?), I would think the other Allies have become monsters with Russia and UK closing in on Germany for the Kill and Japan close to completely knocked off Asia.

If anyone wants to try it, I’ll agree to play a straight up OOB G40 2nd as the allies on triple a.�  We could agree to some conditions, i.e.�  moves I can’t make as the allies to make the attack even feasible.

PM me if interested.

I don’t completely disagree to a lot of what your saying. I’m not that good of a player. But I reacted to what would normally be considered the “responsible” moves and it didn’t work.

Also, in this gambit, Japan is willing to sacrifice planes to take a lot of stuff out…and then can replenish the empty carriers. I still think the best move is to abandon the Pacific…having now played against this surprised strike and lost. I had large stacks of ground units…but bought too many boats in US turns 1-2 that were easily sunk by Japan.

Yes, you have 52 IPCs, but if the first turn is 3 expensive warships on the Western US, instead of purchasing 3 fighters, 2 armor, 1 mech, 2 infantry, then you’re already behind in my opinion. My speculation on this is based on having played a game…maybe I’m the one that’s wrong. But like I said, I went through the file with other players, all better than me, and we all agreed what I wrote is a good plan to DEFEAT this strategy and like all said result in a failed Axis gambit. I mentioned that Berlin was almost captured…but it wasn’t. The US capital was captured on like Turn 4, then turn 6. And by that time the US wasn’t making much more than maybe 28 ICPs and most of it’s Major ICs have been reduced to minor ICs. I guess with Russia I should have bought an IC in Ukraine but I didn’t. At a certain point, it’s still hard to capture Germany due to the fact that Russia is going a very long distance from their ICs that can produce at total of only 6 while Germany can drop 10 on it’s capital. Also, Russia, doesn’t get to DOW until Turn 4 in this game anyways.

Regarding your last point, could the Allies still win without North America due to being way ahead everywhere else. I really don’t think so. The amount of money their collecting makes up for all of the losses and territory they’re normally supposed to gain. Plus, it’s mostly a 1 front war then for both Japan and Germany. Germany sacked Washington, then I gave up as Russia wasn’t large enough to get Berlin. I think I sent too much forces Scandinavia and into the Balkans to get money, meanwhile, Germany was spending a lot on infantry defense. Germany had enough money to start producing lots of tanks. And without the threat of a major landing by the US…it’s just academic at that point. For Japan, yes, they lost the money islands and China was huge. But they had a large fleet and the money from Hawaii, Alaska, western US (10 alone there), Panama, with which to fight for the islands to get their income even higher. Again, it’s merely academic. In most games I’ve played on triplea, Sea Lion results in an Axis victory. On this forum, everyone says it means Axis death. Well, the US isn’t getting liberated as 3rd time (Canada Liberated the US the first time). All fighters from London we’re flown over…ect.

I’m not one to provide a good demonstration on, but I’d be willing to try against you on tiplea. If you want to do the PBEM style that’s fine, I just don’t know how to set it up. You have to keep in mind it’s purely for demonstration purposes…so as a condition, I’d need you to react like you don’t think Washington DC is the target in order to see it. If for instance the UK transport in sZ106 survives, you should be bringing forces over to the UK…ext. If Germany can still do Sea Lion, build more on London. Remember, demonstration purposes only. Obviously if you know straight up that all 3 Axis forces are all going for Washington DC then it might not work.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

I still don’t think that it is a legal move. So far nobody has proven otherwise. Just because the computer let you do it doesn’t make it a legal move. An ambiguously written sentence doesn’t prove it either when you consider how ridiculous it would be to park the Japanese fleet in Pearl Harbour with fully loaded transports. I understand that many things in this game don’t make sense and that some things had to be done a certain way in order to make the game playable, but this is not that. I will only believe it when we get an official interpretation of the rule. and an explanation of how stupid the American commanders had to be in order to allow that to happen.

The RCN never had any flying pirate ships. Clearly only a strict neutral can possess them.