Never mind, saw the answer on the next page.
Axis Victories (what's the "magic" trick?)
-
I think a -50 TUV swing is probably acceptable losses for Japan. You loot about 10 IPCs if you sack India on turn 3, and you collect 3 IPCs for the territory plus 5 IPCs for the NO each turn, and you also deny the Allies about 6 IPCs per turn in ongoing income. Sure, you can lower UK Pacific income below 6 IPCs with subs, bombing, etc., but actually conquering India frees up those subs and bombers for other campaigns, so I think it’s still fair to count the UK Pacific income at 6 IPCs.
So you’re looking at a 10 + 8 + 6 = 24 IPC swing on turn 3, followed by an 8 + 6 = 14 IPC swing on turn 4, and another 14 IPCs on turn 5, meaning you’ve essentially broken even by turn 5. It’s not literally the best economic investment Japan could make, but it gets you a victory city and denies the Allies a lot of strategic options and puts pressure on the Middle East / Stalingrad region and consolidates your rear so you can focus on confronting USA / ANZAC without any naval threats to your west. It’s a good deal for Japan if you can get India for only 50 IPCs of net TUV loss.
I think a -90 TUV swing is probably cost prohibitive – at that point you’re likely to have so few planes left that America can get the jump on you, force you out of the Philippines and the money islands, and send you into a death spiral. Theoretically you would eventually pay off your investment if you continue to hold India, but in practice you will lose so much ground to America that the net swing will be in America’s favor, not in your favor. E.g. if America takes just Borneo and the Philippines from you, that’s a swing of 4 + 4 + 2 + 5 = 15 IPCs (or more if that costs you the money island NO), so you’re already net negative trading Borneo + Philippines for India. If you can take and hold West India and Shan State too that makes it 15 IPCs vs. 17 IPCs, so technically you’re up 2 IPCs…but it will take you forever to pay off a 90 IPC investment at 2 IPCs per turn. That’s not a good deal.
I’m unclear on how/why you lose 3 infantry attacking Java – what’s on Java besides 3 ANZAC fighters? Are you assuming all 3 of the fighters score a hit?
-
Losing 14-19 fighters to capture India on J3 is not worth it IMHO. You haven’t subtracted the lost income of not controlling the money islands, along with loss of Mainland Asia from combined China+ Russia assault. You aren’t going to hold China + Money Islands after such a huge loss. Perhaps it is a good plan if going against a much better opponent and you are praying to the dice gods.
If I were doing a India or bust stray, I would capture it on J4 and then abandon victory in Asia to focus on Europe. The Japanese fleet would swing around to the Middle East and Asia.
-
I agree with both posters. So the conclusion from that is that putting the 3 ANZAC fighters +2inf on Java A1 with a max turtle is an effective block to the J3 DOW version of this strategy. In that strategy, you have to assume that bombards are able to be blocked and troops can also return from the islands.
I’m unclear on how/why you lose 3 infantry attacking Java – what’s on Java besides 3 ANZAC fighters? Are you assuming all 3 of the fighters score a hit?
The 2 inf I’m putting on Java A1 should hit 0.67 inf in the first round and can pretty easily force a second round especially if there isn’t a bombard. Battle calc: https://goo.gl/hrKKcc
You could also take Java as UK with 2inf from Malaya and then reinforce with 1inf 1AA Gun + the 3ftr as ANZAC. This may be optimal, I’m not completely sure.
Optimal UK1 buy in this case would be 3inf 2mech which defend the same as 5inf but can retake either Shan State or Yunnan.
I would discount the possibility of a round 1 allied DOW on Japan with such positioning by Japan.
Next question is if the allies do this block, can Japan change up to a J2 DOW strategy which will be as good? With only 1TT in SZ6, it probably needs to bypass The Philippines. You may bypass attacking Sumatra as Japan because you’re only going to get the money as plunder and better to concentrate your attacks. So let’s say that you can still attack India J3 with 2inf 3art 1arm from 4TTs but you can probably have bombards if you can block SZ39 and SZ41 as well as SZ42.
Interestingly, such a battle seems to work out for Japan, with a -35TUV from attacking India and 91% chance of taking the territory: https://goo.gl/i66VFU . Given that you’ve also have a +22 TUV from hitting Java the investment would be paid off quickly if the dice come out average.
Do you still need the naval base for that plan? I would say so. Without the naval base, UK can use its Cruiser and DD to block SZ37 (Malaya) and SZ43 (Borneo) and prevent the attack on Java.
In fact, even with the naval base, UK can use all 3 of its ships as blockers including SZ44 (Celebes) to prevent an attack on Java. Should they? I think so but only if Japan can bring in its land based planes J3, which UK doesn’t know UK1. If USSR are staying home and not helping China, I think you have to assume that Japan will get a landing field. They can use an all air attack on Szechwan and/or Kweichow J2 to prevent the Chinese from recapturing Yunnan. USSR can use its mobile troops from Sikang to retake Yunnan and UK can use some mechs to retake Shan State, providing that Burma is still UK owned.
One thing Japan might do J1 is move the SZ6 TT to SZ33 (Carolines). That makes it too hard to block out from Java but then Japan wouldn’t be able to take Java without losing planes or good dice.
I think I’ve just explained the nearly perfect block to the Calcutta or bust strategy. Is it costly? Absolutely, given that you’ll lose the UK BB. It’s also costly for Japan given that they’ll lose a lot of their ground units and not have many reinforcements for a long time.
I would wonder about getting on India J4 after such a move. Technically, only 3IPC of Calcutta income is not able to be convoyed off so if the stars align you may only have to fight one more infantry on a J4 assault. I would suppose you would hit The Philippines J2 in that scenario which then threatens SZ54 given that you’ve taken out the ANZAC planes.
-
What about a pivot to hit Sydney on J4? If you’re moving 2 inf and 3 fighters to Java on A1, and Japan can crush them on J2, that could leave Australia awfully weak, especially if you’re also pulling troops off of Malaya (could lose the NO early for anzac). India is max turtling, so, ignore India and hit China and Anzac in the opening, followed by money islands.
-
What about a pivot to hit Sydney on J4? If you’re moving 2 inf and 3 fighters to Java on A1, and Japan can crush them on J2, that could leave Australia awfully weak, especially if you’re also pulling troops off of Malaya (could lose the NO early for anzac). India is max turtling, so, ignore India and hit China and Anzac in the opening, followed by money islands.
Interesting idea. If the allies are putting down the 3 blockers then they can’t take out the fighters easily of course. Perhaps the allies need to do the blockers but I can’t say that I’m at all happy about the idea.
-
Going to Sydney on J4 leaves mainland Asia wide open for reconquest by combined India+China+Russia+USA. You are leaving only a handful of planes that can project power in that theater. Once China starts making five or six inf+arts per turn, reinforced by another few infantry from USA and India, it becomes impossible for Japan to reconquer the key territories. At that point the Allies can focus on controlling Europe because there is no chance of an easy victory in the Pacific.
Some Bovine player mentioned a plan of doing a standard J1 opening, and strafing Burma if India moves their stack there on UK1. I assume that will lead to a higher probability of capturing India
and a better TUV result on J3 or J4. Do many people use this tactic? -
I dunno, ABH, I realize you’re a much better player on this map than I am, but depending on what Australia builds, I think you may be able to take Sydney on the cheap, without evacuating China. If ANZAC builds 3 infantry on A1, fine, maybe Sydney’s not a good investment. But if they build a transport and an infantry on turn 1, and they’re minus 2 infantry and minus 3 fighters and minus their naval blockers and you’ve got a naval base in Hainan, how much do you really need to take Australia? They’ve got what, something like 2 inf, 1 art, 1 AAA left on the mainland after A1? So after A3 that means something like 5 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, plus whatever planes the USA can fly over, if the USA even sees the attack coming in time. You could probably take that out as Japan with 3 loaded transports, 1 battleship, and 2 loaded carrier groups, which is a lot less than the entire Japanese air force.
If both India and ANZAC are doing a max turtle (India buys 3 inf, 2 mech; ANZAC buys 3 inf) and using their entire navies as blockers for Java, then I think the right strategy is to kill the blockers for cheap, take the money islands, don’t attack any capitals, send subs to India, focus on attacking China after you get the money islands, and just play a conservative game. At that point, the Allies have no navy in the western Pacific / eastern Indian ocean, so the money islands are easy to take and hold, although I guess you might not get Java until J3 if the Allies are really serious about reinforcing it from Malaya (that’s fine; taking Malaya is a higher priority anyway). You’re in a good position to hold out indefinitely against a KJF because none of the local Allied powers are building any offensive units, and if America focuses on Europe then you’ll have enough money to build up forces to take India on J6 or J7 and fight a standard endgame where you try to get to Sydney or Honolulu before America can shut down Germany hard enough to allow them to pivot to the Pacific. I think I’d be pretty happy to play that game as the Axis, as long as the bid isn’t too high.
So if India doesn’t turtle, take India. If India turtles but ANZAC is aggressive, take ANZAC for cheap while holding the line in China. If both India and ANZAC turtle, take the money islands and press forward in China. It’s nuanced, but it’s not rocket science.
-
ANZAC should still have its ships. They aren’t in a position to do anything useful on round 1. Even if you split your fleet at WA and NT, they can still put blockers off Qld and SA. So you can’t expect to arrive before turn 4. So you have to budget on 7inf being built if one is built round 1 in addition to the 5 land units remaining. That’s still not that many though with your 3-4 transports + 3 loaded CVs. I’d think you’d be likely to take the capital but then will USA take your fleet? Certainly you would need to be doing something to fight China.
Regarding the Burma strafe, that’s something to be aware of. I once blocked it out at sea but that shouldn’t have been possible. Better positioning by Japan would have seen India fall J3.
-
Without ANZAC ships, how do you get 3 blockers to screen Java against a J2 attack? Are you using American ships?
-
Hi Simon, there should be enough planes in Kwangsi to strafe Burma on J2 and kill all of the ground troops in one round of rolling. The TUV swing will be essentially zero for the operation. Most importantly, you are trading fighters with an Attack of 3 for three ground units with a combined Defense of 6. That results in much better odds for a J3 or J4 attack on India. Many India players just turtle in their capitol on UK1 so I haven’t had a chance to test out the game plan.
Argothair, I have never played a game where Sidney could be captured on the cheap. There are so many ways to delay the movement to the capitol, and it is easy for the Americans to reinforce with a few planes. Perhaps it is possible in face-to-face games where people make mistakes more easily. Otherwise I would think that you would need to commit a minimum of 4 or 5 loaded carriers to the operation. It doesn’t help that the carrier-based fighters can’t strike from the sea zones next to Java or Caroline Islands. I have seen a trend among top players to more heavily devote ANZAC spending to protecting Australia. They have ground forces to recapture territories if you land just a few transports-full of Japanese invaders.
The blockers don’t screen against a J2 attack on Java, but instead prevent a J3 attack into Sidney. Hence you would have to station your fleet in a place like SZ 61 on J3. That is a long way from being able to support operations in mainland Asia.
-
Without ANZAC ships, how do you get 3 blockers to screen Java against a J2 attack? Are you using American ships?
UK has a cruiser, DD and BB in the area. In fact, they’re the only ships which can reach unless you count the US DD which you shouldn’t use because they can just avoid the DOW on USA.
@Arthur:
Hi Simon, there should be enough planes in Kwangsi to strafe Burma on J2 and kill all of the ground troops in one round of rolling. The TUV swing will be essentially zero for the operation. Most importantly, you are trading fighters with an Attack of 3 for three ground units with a combined Defense of 6. That results in much better odds for a J3 or J4 attack on India. Many India players just turtle in their capitol on UK1 so I haven’t had a chance to test out the game plan.
Quite. That’s why mobile troops are so good for India. They don’t need to be exposed in Burma to help out in Yunnan or retake Shan State.
-
Some Bovine player mentioned a plan of doing a standard J1 opening, and strafing Burma if India moves their stack there on UK1. I assume that will lead to a higher probability of capturing India
and a better TUV result on J3 or J4. Do many people use this tactic?Yes I do this occasionally. Very high risk move so it can backfire. Depends heavily on the board and what’s in Burma or Yunnan, but it’s usually possible to strafe Burma with aircraft while taking Java, Celebes, and either Sumatra or Dutch New Guinea. Theoretically it’s worth it to strafe Burma (or the Chinese stack) if the TUV exchange is -10 or better…but that doesn’t mean you should always take the battle if the average exchange is -10 or better. It’s only worth it if you can followup quickly and capture India on J3 or J4, preferably w/o having to buy an air or naval base or both.
-
I agree about the huge risk of the Burma or China-stack strafe. I don’t do it if the dice were in my favor on G1, but definitely take the opportunity if G1 was awful. The last time I tried, I had miserable luck and conceded the game after J2. Blah!
-
Dutch are allies. You don’t need to convert these territories to uk or Anzac control to land fighters on them. The fighters can be landed the same turn as the troops.
Are you sure? looking at the rules i see under Dutch Territories in the pacific rulebook that They are treated as friendly to allies except for UK/ANZAC guardianship. under friendly neutrals it says you may not attack a friendly neutral or fly air units over it, but may move land units onto it in noncombat.
I assume friendly meant friendly neutral. So we assumed that until the dutch territory has been controlled since the start of your turn by an ally, you can’t land on it. I would love some clarification on this if anyone has it (preferably with a rule’s citation!) thanks everyone!
-
Dutch are allies. You don’t need to convert these territories to uk or Anzac control to land fighters on them. The fighters can be landed the same turn as the troops.
Are you sure? looking at the rules i see under Dutch Territories in the pacific rulebook that They are treated as friendly to allies except for UK/ANZAC guardianship. under friendly neutrals it says you may not attack a friendly neutral or fly air units over it, but may move land units onto it in noncombat.
I assume friendly meant friendly neutral. So we assumed that until the dutch territory has been controlled since the start of your turn by an ally, you can’t land on it. I would love some clarification on this if anyone has it (preferably with a rule’s citation!) thanks everyone!
The Dutch territories are treated like the French territories after Paris has fallen - they are friendly and not neutral, but they have a special relationship with UK/ANZAC to allow them to take control without first being taken by Axis.
A rule moderator posted about it here
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.0_I will add Dutch rules:
I won’t use the quote function because it will all be in small print with blue background, so I’ll just cite the source. This is from kcdzim:
Dutch territories are treated exactly the same as any other territory that isa) friendly
b) lost their capitol.The only difference between Dutch territories and say, French territories after Paris has been lost, is that the UK/Anzac have a special relationship that allows them to take control of them before they’ve been captured by moving a ground unit into it. (Exception - the Dutch Guiana territory in South America) Typically you need to capture - this is the one of the two instances where control of a friendly territory passes to a friendly power. The other instance is a neutral that has been attacked but not captured.
So when you’re confused about things, ask yourself how you’d treat normandy if it were still french.
Can you UK/Anzac/US/Russia land a plane there? Yes, as long as it started the turn friendly and they’re not neutral. Exactly the same as any other friendly territory.
The US is not barred from being in a dutch territory - they must be at war first, but then they’re allowed to move into it just like any other friendly territory.
I will add one direct statement in an attempt to improve understanding and clarity:The USA can NOT take control of a Dutch territory the way UK/ANZ can. The only way for the USA to control a territory that was originally Dutch is if an Axis power takes it first. Then if the USA takes it, they will control it._
-
Dutch are allies. You don’t need to convert these territories to uk or Anzac control to land fighters on them. The fighters can be landed the same turn as the troops.
Are you sure? looking at the rules i see under Dutch Territories in the pacific rulebook that They are treated as friendly to allies except for UK/ANZAC guardianship. under friendly neutrals it says you may not attack a friendly neutral or fly air units over it, but may move land units onto it in noncombat.
I assume friendly meant friendly neutral. So we assumed that until the dutch territory has been controlled since the start of your turn by an ally, you can’t land on it. I would love some clarification on this if anyone has it (preferably with a rule’s citation!) thanks everyone!
I’m sure. Dutch aren’t friendly neutral. Although the rulebook doesn’t make this as clear as I would like. Most convincing bit is here:
@Pac:These two powers also have an arrangement with the
Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured
by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch
territories in the Pacific.
Suggested Topics
