Thank you Krieghund…
Pearl Harbour Attack
-
Hello there,
I got this insidious idea while working on my Japanese strategy. It is focused on a J3 India Crush combined with J3 Hawaii Attack, therefore stealing the victory in J4.
Germany and Italy can help Japan to attack the USA at atlantic map (G1 sub attacks cruiser + transport) and (I2 invades west indies with transport that took gibraltar)
J1: 3 Transports
J2: 4 Transports, Naval Base FIC
J3: Whatever you like
J4: You wonJ1: Standard JDOW1 attack with Pearl Habour Attack, Chinese Moves, FIC, Philippines, Borneo, Kwantung, UK Battleship.
J2: Take rest of islands, move to India with transports and planes. Make sure you have 3 ships available that can block S9, 11 and 11 (this is crucial).
J3:
Crush India with all southern forces (5 transports + air)
Attack Hawaii with 4 transports + aircraft planes (4 total)
Move blockers to S9, 10 and 11 so USA fleet can not re-take Hawaii in 1 turn.In case you captured India and Hawaii, you will win the game in J4
Rationale
The idea is that you do not allow the USA to slowly take control of the Pacific. After you did a pearl harbour attack in J1, combined with Philippines and possibly even G1 submarine attack, the USA desperately needs to rebuild its fleet. This gives you a head start, as the USA is likely not going to be aggressive and building transports, but aircraft carriers and other surface ships. It forces him to play defensively on which you can capitalize as Japan by using weakness of defence of Hawaii (4 transports + 4 planes can take it when not reinforced). The insidious part is that even while his fleet is likely stronger than your Japanese one after two rounds of building ships (and so his idea that Hawaii can be retaken and is therefore safe) you deny him that access by blocking his stronger fleet, capturing victory because of the rules (6 capital cities for 1 turn)USA only gets to build two times, USA1: 52 and USA2: 65 to counter this sneaky surprise tactic.
USA can counter by reinforcing Hawaii from the start and by being very aggressive. 1 succesful G1 attack with submarine on his cruiser and transport in that sense could be very helpful attracting attention away from Hawaii.
Thoughts?
-
I like the way you’re thinking creatively, and it’s possible there’s some way to exploit the fact that Hawaii can be 100% blocked off from the USA for a turn with only 3 ships – maybe later in the game if you have a fleet in the Carolines or at a Japanese-occupied Midway with a naval base, or something crazy like that. You would also need to make sure ANZAC is not in position to liberate Hawaii after the US can-opens for them.
The specific plan of attack you’re proposing is crazy because you would need twice as many starting forces as Japan actually has to pull it off. J3 India Crush is plausible against a competent opponent, barely, if you send 100% of your starting forces in the general direction of India. The fact that you’re doing a Pearl Harbor attack on J1 means that J3 India Crush is off the table. The fact that you’re also diverting 4 transports and 2 carrier groups to take Hawaii means that you will eat flak and die in India. The most likely result is that you will lose half the Japanese air force while not taking India. Meanwhile, ANZAC eats the money islands, and UK Europe winds up very strong because the Italian fleet sailed away west to capture a 1-IPC territory, and the German fleet sailed away west to knock out 2 American warships, so at least one of the UK Home Fleets likely survived, and the UK winds up with easy/cheap control of the Med and can start convoying Italy right away, and can start landings in France/Holland/Denmark/Norway right away, too.
Another point to keep in mind is that with your bombers busy knocking out the UK battleship, and your transports and air power busy in the Philippines and then India and then Hawaii, you will be very lucky to stalemate China in its current position – you run a real risk of losing Shanghai, which would block your proposed J4 victory. After seeing Germany’s looney-tunes assault on the US Atlantic fleet, Russia can safely build planes and stack Amur and Kazakh on R1, and then declare war on Japan on R2 and invade from both Kazakh and Siberia, giving the starting mechs a decent chance of reaching the Chinese coast on R4, which would also block the proposed J4 victory.
-
Tirano and I discussed this at Gencon, I remain skeptical regarding how all the J1 primary goals can be completed WITH pearl harbor on the table as well. YG has a video where he lays out both gambits, but goes on to demonstrate what has to be taken away from the J1 in Asia to fulfill the PH attack, and declines PH in order to safely complete the J1.
Without the airbase, how can the air come to kill India? You only have 3 carriers, they’re needed to support both the east and west parts of your plan? You also need Yunnan, which will either cost you your invasion troops, or be left to China.
Crush India sounds nice, but after casualties are taken during J1-J2, how can we even fill most of those transports, if anything went into China? J1 doesnt leave time for a trip back so its 1 packet of troops that diminish turn after turn.
Why can’t USA step into SZ26? How much threat can we express against him when you have already allocated your planes and heavy ships to the southern push? I see that you can shuttle planes from japan into that fight–but what im not sure of is once you PH, why won’t he respond to that by spending 100% of his 10 factory money to stop what you’re doing, and before you can screen him out. Wont he do-or die defend Hawaii, since that’s what’s at stake?
How can we get 4 TT’s worth of troops without budgeting for those? Strip asia forces?
Italy and Germany’s contribution to your plan aren’t game changers when you consider that SZ 91 is likely blocked and that G/Ital have plenty to do on turn 1. It would be worth it to blow your chances of success on one board to ensure them on the other, but a much better plan is to play the game more conservatively and switch your focus from winning on the Pac board to the Atl board, then back to the Pac board…this makes the allies have to take bigger and bigger risks to stop your victory as you switch targets.The plan sounds awesome, but in my experience, J1 leaves Japan thin and quite vulnerable to the US. To account for blockers, carrier-shuttling, bombardments, and all your planes being in the right place to attack both targets–Japan despite its “Airplane Sprinkles” cannot do everything at once or in 1 turn. Planes that can strike the US cant strike India, sometimes they are 2 turns away from being able to switch goals.
-
PH and India is less likely a good combo.
PH and Sydney on the other Hand could be an Option… -
Thanks a lot for the feedback, after thinking about it I still like the 4 transport buy in J2 when Pearl Harbour has been attacked. I agree I will stretch myself to the maximum, making optimal use of the starting fleet the Japanese have.
Yet in South East Asia, you do not face much naval resistance:
UK: 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer
ANZAC: 1 cruiser, 1 destroyerJapan: 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 full carrier (assuming sub + destroyer died in philippines attack)
The USA fleet in SZ10 is already powerful and could start hunting your northern fleet directly, this is indeed a problem. Even if this is the case, you can move your fleet to caroline islands and send 3 fighters from Kwangsi (most of my planes will land there in J1) to the aircraft carriers so you have 3 more planes scrambling giving you the advantage. You have to discard this plan immediately however as you can not build transports in unprotected S6. If USA is aggressive, take the slow conservative approach while taking money islands asap.
I hope (and assume) my pearl harbour attack with german sub in atlantic and philippines invasion will influence the USA to be more defensive in the first two turns, building up his fleet (having lost 3/4 of his fleets in J1). This gives me breathing space to manoeuvre my fleet and have unprotected transports build in S6.
Fleet balance between Japan and USA after succesful J1:
USA: 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, carrier w/tac & ftr
Japan: 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 carriers w/tac & ftr (assuming all fodder besides blocker died in pearl harbour)
Without the airbase, how can the air come to kill India?
Shan State. You take it with 2 infantry from Siam. My experience is that Allies find Malaya so essential you prefer defending that place. They also like to use its air for Iraq or other missions. In case they do wipe Shan State, retake it in J2 in favour of a money island. Securing Shan State the turn before you attack India is crucial. I do realize now that with continued focus of UK on taking Shan State you indeed face a problem for your planes to land.How can we get 4 TT’s worth of troops without budgeting for those?
I take the 8 infantry I left in Korea for keeping the Russians honest. Northern china is then indeed undefended. It does mean I have 10 transports full of troops, this gives me the flexibility to go for India, Sydney or Honolu in proposed sneak attack.When does this plan not work?
- USA is aggressive in its first turn or reinforces Hawaii
- Shan State is taken by the UK
Ofcourse an important aspect of this is surprise and forcing the Allies to play defensively. As USA (not one too experienced) on the board my enemy would likely first rebuild and then start to attack (when 3/4 of my fleet is wiped). Same for UK, Japan that is super aggressive would likely result in UK wanting to preserve Malaya and India, not attacking but turtling. Only when they indeed react defensively to my first turn, it can work.
A proactive and aggressive Allied from the start will make it much harder for Japan. Yet even when that happens, Japan is not doomed, it needs to change course from this plan, unite its fleet again (can be done in J3) and push through Sydney or India more slowly (but still within J5).
Do remember I can have 7 transports full of reinforcements in FIC J3 to fight the Chinese in this plan + the Money Islands in J2.
About atlantic help
Italy will indeed not be helpful, Germany however does not detract much from its normal course. Instead of attacking S106 with 2 subs, you now attack it with 1, the other to USA cruiser + transport. In case you get lucky, that sub killed 19 IPC + convoy cost to USA. -
Thinking about this last night, you do propose to take out 2 of his 3 transports, which makes it more difficult to stack hawaii.
-
Another important observation is that USA only has its first turn to counter this sneak attack on Hawaii J3, 52 points in total. I hope ofcourse that he spends this on ships.
It can only work when the USA thinks it has to rebuild its fleet after J1 and because of its close distance, can attack or reinforce Hawaii in a single turn, which you negate by sacrificial blockers. The longer you wait the more difficult it is to pull it off I guess. Nevertheless it is something you can always keep in mind when the situation occurs you can do this trick. You need 1 ship at Japan and 2 ships at Caroline Islands to block Hawaii.
Even in later stages of the game, when you control India or Sydney, you can steal victory from an unaware USA player.
-
I do see what you are saying–the block might work if all of these can be coordinated. Where it may fall apart is that all the things we will need to assault hawaii (2 CV, 1DD and 3 MORE block ships) will prevent the india take from happening on schedule. If both VCs can’t be taken, the entire strategy collapses because now the USA can take Hawaii back in due time–both targets have to be taken on the same turn, which requires more ships than Japan starts with.
I like your thinking and appreciate your idea; it reminds me of Dave’s Operation Hollywood/Operation Everything plans where Japan and Germany stack on the USA, an all out kill america first. This plan (either to take iceland and land with all of germany’s air on japan’s canadian territory, or to take the panama canal with german/italy and let japan into the atlantic) had some really creative goals, but we never suceesfully deployed either plan, because the intricate dance of blockers and buys became too unpredictable, and eventually some shortfall in the gambit was revealed as the strain of accomplishing all of the pre-planned objectives caused something to be omitted or missed. At that point (turn 4), there were too many uncertainties about what the other players might do, and too many contingencies–but your plan avoids getting that far into the game.
-
@Afrikakorps It might be a helpful exercise for you to try to specify exactly which units you think will be attacking India on J3 and where those units were on J2 and J1. I think Japan starts with 19 planes. If you’re sending 4 of them to attack Hawaii, and you’re lucky enough to take only 1 air casualty in all of your opening moves, and you’re leaving 3 planes near Tokyo to protect your northern fleet, that leaves you at most 11 planes for attacking India. Similarly, if you’re sending 4 transports east to take Hawaii, that leaves you at most 6 transports (= 12 land units) for attacking India. So you’re looking at an attack, at best, with 23 Japanese attackers – but surely you will take some land casualties at some point along your journey in attacking the Philippines, Kwangtung, and Shan State, so in reality you will have somewhat fewer units.
You could also try to write out which British units you think will be defending in India on J3. Conservatively, it seems like those units would include at least the starting 6 inf, 1 art, 3 AAA, 2 ftr, 1 tac that start on India, plus the 5 inf that India can build on UK1, plus another 3 inf (minimum) that India can build on UK2. That means the UK is defending with at least 14 inf, 1 art, 3 AAA, 2 ftr, 1 tac. In reality, they will probably have a couple more units than that, because if they see your attack coming then they can reinforce from Burma, ANZAC, Russia, the Med, etc., but even with total surprise, you have to expect to be fighting against 21 British defenders.
You also have to take and hold India – if the Allies can re-take India on UK3 or R4 using forces from the Mediterranean or Persia, then your gambit fails.
If you’re going to base your entire strategy around a very specific, unusual, scripted attack, it helps to know what the odds of that attack are! I would bet that if you write out the scenario and run in through a battle calculator, and you’re honest with yourself about which units are going to be available to attack India on J3, then the battle calculator will show less than a 10% chance for Japan to hold India with more than 3 land units, even if you sacrifice every plane you own in the region.
In general I think you are investing way too much effort into gleefully imagining how you will trick and manipulate your opponents, and not nearly enough effort into crunching the numbers to find a strategy that has a high probability of succeeding even when your opponents are aware of your plans. You’re not wrong that some weaker US players will panic after a strong Pearl Harbor attack and build a new US Pacific fleet that will be too slow to save Hawaii, and you’re not wrong that some weaker UK players will stubbornly try to defend Malaya while ignoring Japan’s staging ground in Shan State – but if the US player happens to realize that he can build fighters to reinforce Hawaii and win the game, or if the UK player happens to realize that an attack on the Shan State will save India and win the game, or if the Russian player happens to realize that an R2 attack on Korea will destroy the only possible source of the infantry you need to take India, then your whole strategy falls apart. The strategy you’re proposing is a little like the Fool’s Mate in chess – sure, if it works, then you quickly win the game, but once people know about it, it’s very easy for them to defend against it and crush you in the process.
-
Well said Argo, that’s what a “gambit” or “stratagem” is— we will be taking a large risk in order to reap large gains. However, a more flexible, reactive and conservative strategy outlines only general goals, assumes the game will take the full 12-15 turns, and hopes that by refusing to take big risks that solid play will prevail and your opponent will hopefully give up before being constricted to death.
Dave has a bit different philosophy; “go bold”. He focuses his air and naval attacks in a “schwerpunkt” fashion–maximum force applied at the critical place. I think that’s why we make a good team, I take the more general and conservative approach, and start the game with few assumptions or plans.
-
@taamvan said in Pearl Harbour Attack:
Well said Argo, that’s what a “gambit” or “stratagem” is— we will be taking a large risk in order to reap large gains. However, a more flexible, reactive and conservative strategy outlines only general goals, assumes the game will take the full 12-15 turns, and hopes that by refusing to take big risks that solid play will prevail and your opponent will hopefully give up before being constricted to death.
Dave has a bit different philosophy; “go bold”. He focuses his air and naval attacks in a “schwerpunkt” fashion–maximum force applied at the critical place. I think that’s why we make a good team, I take the more general and conservative approach, and start the game with few assumptions or plans.
Here’s an equivalent, from the world of chess, of these two contrasting philosophies:
Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian was a Soviet Armenian Grandmaster, and World Chess Champion from 1963 to 1969. He was nicknamed “Iron Tigran” due to his almost impenetrable defensive playing style, which emphasised safety above all else. […] Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Aron Nimzowitsch’s idea of prophylaxis. He made more effort to prevent his opponent’s offensive capabilities than he did to make use of his own. He very rarely went on the offensive unless he felt his position was completely secure. He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own. This style of play often led to draws, especially against other players who preferred to counterattack. Nonetheless, his patience and mastery of defence made him extremely difficult to beat. He was undefeated at the 1952 and 1955 Interzonals, and in 1962 he did not lose a single tournament game. Petrosian’s consistent ability to avoid defeat earned him the nickname “Iron Tigran”. He was considered to be the hardest player to beat in the history of chess by the authors of a 2004 book.
Jorgen Bent Larsen was a Danish chess grandmaster and author. Known for his imaginative and unorthodox style of play, he was the first Western player to pose a serious challenge to the Soviet Union’s dominance in chess. He is considered to be the strongest player born in Denmark and the strongest from Scandinavia until the emergence of Magnus Carlsen. […] Larsen was known as a deep thinking and highly imaginative player, more willing to try unorthodox ideas and to take more risks than most of his peers. This aspect of his play could even manifest itself in his choice of openings. “He is a firm believer in the value of surprise. Consequently, he often resorts to dubious variations in various openings. He also likes to complicate positions even though it may involve considerable risk. He has a great deal of confidence in his game and fears no one. His unique style has proven extremely effective against relatively weak opponents but has not been too successful against top-notchers.”
-
Love it. While chess isn’t my personal favorite, it is a model for wargaming. Its amazing that with such a limited set of starting options and pieces, that the game has a tremendous following and has, in all its variants, for centuries.
Some people believe that the sides in chess are equal. This is a misconception; the players start with symmetrical forces, but the White player has + one more unit of initiative, and the Black player has + one more piece of information (what White did). This is a good analogy to our favorite game, and is the starting point for all “asymmetrical” wargames, where the players share common units types and resources, but are each different and unique.
-
@taamvan said in Pearl Harbour Attack:
Love it. While chess isn’t my personal favorite, it is a model for wargaming. Its amazing that with such a limited set of starting options and pieces, that the game has a tremendous following and has, in all its variants, for centuries.
Some people believe that the sides in chess are equal. This is a misconception; the players start with symmetrical forces, but the White player has + one more unit of initiative, and the Black player has + one more piece of information (what White did). This is a good analogy to our favorite game, and is the starting point for all “asymmetrical” wargames, where the players share common units types and resources, but are each different and unique.
I once heard about a Russian chess grandmaster (I forget who, so I’ll call him So-and-So) who was asked whether he prefers to play the white or black pieces. He answered: “It makes no difference to me. When I play white, I win because I play first. When I play black, I win because I am So-and-So.”
-
Thanks again for another round of excellent and interesting feedback!
As you might have figured so far, I am more like Jorgen Bent Larsen, preferring onorthodox strategies based on surprise and deception. Ofcourse it really helps that my group only plays a game twice a year and now after two years I am Axis again (while both allies will play their nations for the first time in 2 again). I am also the only one that studies this forum inside out as his hobby. This makes my playstyle ofcourse more suitable than hardened TripleA veterans. There is therefore reason to believe they might act as I expect them to act. I do really not mind if I win with a Fool’s Mate the first time I use it, actually I would love it!
Nevertheless Argothair you are absolutely right it is important to be realistic, run battles with a battle calculator in advance and have a detailed plan in how I expect to have a certain amount of units somewhere (India battle). I have improved all my past strategies by sharing it on these forums as you pointed out the wrong assumptions and weak parts. So thats what I will do again.
Japan 1
J1 purchase:
• 3 TransportCombat move:
SZ 26:
• 1 submarine (SZ 6)
• 2 destroyers (SZ 6)
• 2 fighters (SZ 6)
• 2 tactical bombers (SZ 6)SZ 35:
• 1 Submarine (SZ 19)
• 1 Destroyer (SZ 19)
• 1 Cruiser (SZ 6)
• 1 Battleship (SZ 19)
• 2 Transports (1 Tank, 1 Artillery, 2 Infantry) – Japan, OkinawaSZ 37:
• 1 Cruiser (SZ 20)
• 1 Bomber (Japan)
• 1 Fighter (Formosa)SZ: 43 :
• 1 Transport (1 Artillery, 1 Infantry) (SZ 20)Philippines
• 1 Tactical Bomber (SZ 35)
• 1 Fighter (SZ 35)
• 1 Tank (Japan)
• 1 Artillery (Japan)
• 2 Infantry (Japan)Borneo
• 1 Infantry (Kiangsi)Shan State
• 2 Infantry (Siam)French Indo China
• 1 Infantry (Kwangsi)Yunnan
• 1 Bomber (Japan)
• 1 Tactical Bomber (Kiangsu)
• 1 Fighter (Kiangsu)
• 1 Artillery (Kwangsi)
• 2 Infantry (Kwangsi)Kwantung
• 2 Infantry (Kiangsi)
• 2 Tactical Bombers (Japan)
• 2 Fighters (Japan + Okinawa)Hunnan
• 1 Infantry (Kiangsi)
• 2 Tactical Bombers (Manchuria)
• 2 Fighters (Manchuria)Chahar
• 1 Infantry (Jehol)Anhwe
• 1 Mechanized Infantry (Manchuria)
• 7 Infantry (Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol)
• 3 Artillery (Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol)Noncombat move:
SZ42
• 1 Destroyer (from SZ33)SZ35
• 1 Aircraft Carrier (from SZ33)Jehol
• 1 AA, 1 Artillery, 2 Infantry (Manchuria)SZ31
• 2 Aircraft Carriers
• 1 BattleshipKwangsi
• Used air craftSZ31
• 2 Fighters (from Korea + Japan) when neededPlacements:
• 3 Transports in SZ6Income:
$41 Income
$4 Extra
= $45Japan 2
Purchase new units• 1 Naval Base in French Indo China
• 1 Destroyer
• 3 TransportsCombat Movement
Yunnan (if needed, otherwise target Malaya)
• 2 Infantry (Shan State)
• 1 Infantry (French Indo China)
• 1 Mechanized Infantry (Anhwe)
• 6 Tactical Bombers
• 6 Fighters (assuming 1 died against UK BB)
• 2 BombersJava (Battleship + Cruiser)
• 1 Tank (Philippines)
• 1 Infantry (Palau Islands)Celebes
• 1 Artillery (Philippines)Sumatra (Full Carrier + Destroyer)
• 1 Infantry (Borneo)
• 1 Artillery (Borneo)Chinese Territories (Suiyuyan, Hopei, Kweichow, Hunan)
• 3 Artillery
• 8 InfantryUK / ANZAC fleets when possible instead of guarding transports
Noncombat movement
SZ 30
• 2 Aircraft Carriers
• 1 BattleshipSZ 6
• 1 Cruiser (S35)SZ36
• 3 Loaded Transports (Unload FIC)Shan State
• All planesPlace new units
• Transport in SZ6
• Factory in French Indo China
• Naval Base in French Indo ChinaCollect Income
$56 Income
$5 Island Bonus
= $61Japan 3
Purchase new unitsCombat Movement
India (5 transports supported by 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer)
• 1 Tank (Sumatra)
• 5 Infantry (French Indo China, Sumatra, Java)
• 4 Artillery (French Indo China, Sumatra, Java)
• 6 Tactical Bombers (Shan State)
• 6 Fighters (Shan State)
• 2 Bombers (Shan State)Likely UK Forces: 2 Fighters, 1 Tactical, 15 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 AA Guns
According to my battle calculations, that gives me 97.3% to win.Hawaii (3 Transport, 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser)
• 6 Infantry (Korea)
• 2 Fighters
• 2 Tactical BombersChinese Territories (Kansu, Shensi, Szechwan, Yunnan)
• 3 Artillery
• 8 Infantry (minus casualties J2)Noncombat movement
SZ 9
• 1 Destroyer (S6)SZ 12
• 1 Battleship (S30)SZ 11
• 1 Carrier (S30)Shan State
• All planesPlace new units
Collect Income
$63 Income
$5 Island Bonus
$10 City Bonus
$ 9 UK Bonus
= $87Quirky Turtle, very good to point this out! I will bring 1 cruiser to S6 in J2 + build a destroyer. I could keep 1 or 2 fighters in Japan that then fight in sea battle of Hawaii, depending on how much fighters there are stationed.
-
Back on topic
I agree with most of the comments here but love the idea and look forward to try this cripple the us early and end them in panic mode as there is no fleet left.@Afrikakorps said in Pearl Harbour Attack:
I hope (and assume) my pearl harbour attack with german sub in atlantic and philippines invasion will influence the USA to be more defensive in the first two turns, building up his fleet (having lost 3/4 of his fleets in J1). This gives me breathing space to manoeuvre my fleet and have unprotected transports build in S6.
One crucial thing to note US can still attack your unprotected transports. 1 fighter from hawaii flies to SZ6 and lands on the carrier from SZ10 in SZ7 while the fighter that was on the carrier lands in Hawaii.
No thread of a landing as the transports are gone so no need to panic and just slow build up while japan loses a build and since they don’t take Hawaii miss the naval range to be effective.
This has almost cost me a game once. It was due to the forgiving nature of my opponents that they let me correct the mistake after having spotted my error after combat had been conducted. -
Here are some other wrinkles that come to mind that need to be wrestled with. #3 is probably the hardest to work around.
- Japan Air Units: For air units to hit India on J3, you need to take and hold one of Yunnan or Shan State on J1 and keep it until J2. This isn’t realistic since China can overwhelm Yunnan on C1 and UK can overwhelm Shan State on UK1. (you could bypass this with an airbase on FIC/Kwangsi on J2, but that will cost you 2 transports headed for Hawaii.)
- India Blockers: To get the 3 transports purchased on J1 to India on J3 requires SZ37 be open and one of SZ38/SZ41 be open. It will be tricky for your stripped-down southern fleet to hold two sea zones from getting cleared and a blocker slipping in. You need to survive potentially:
• UK -> 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tactical
• ANZAC -> 3 fighters, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
• France -> 1 destroyer - West India UK2 Retreat: The UK player can stall by retreating to West India on UK2. Assuming the UK1 purchase was 3 infantry and 2 artillery (not uncommon) UK could easily have 12 infantry, 3 artillery, 2 fighters and 1 tactical on West India without even talking about transported units or planes from the Med. That’s more than enough to re-take India on UK3 from the 12 ground units landing there.
-
Good points. I want to take out the Money Islands + India + lock the burma road as soon as possible, the rest is less important. This gambit is too easily prevented by the Allies and is more likely to result in a swift break down of Japan, as I am especially afraid of #2.
I will not do Pearl Harbour.
I will first focus 100% on getting the money islands and India, then go for either Sydney or Honolulu.
J1: 3 Transports
J2: Minor, Air, Naval FIC
J3: (India Crush), 3 Mech + start building carriers to counter USAMaybe keep 1 battleship, 2 destroyer and 2 fighters in Japan to counter an early strike now Hawaiian fleet is alive and USA likely more aggressive.
This reinforces the southern fleet with 2 full carriers, 1 cruiser and 1 submarine.
Then 2 infantry from Siam can take FIC, making the attack on Yunnan stronger with 1 infantry, giving me at least a counter attack with most of my planes and 2 infantry + 1 mech on Yunnan J2. When Yunnan is not retaken, I do not need an airbare there in J2 and could build my #4 carrier in Japan.
-
Update on the game, which was the fastest and most convincing Axis win we had since playing Allies and Allies over last 6 years, Japan took Hawaii in J7 (India in J4).
I could not resist the experience of doing a Pearl Harbour so decided go for a more conservative slow but steady approach for Japan as I indeed became convinced J3 India + Pearl Harbour can easily be stopped by Allied play. I did take Shan State with 1 infantry to leave the option open, but UK retook it in UK1.
J1: 2 transports, 1 mic in shantung
J2: 3 mech, 1 mic in kiangsu (FIC could be take by UK), 1 carrier
J3: 1 naval base FIC, 2 carriers, 4 fighters
J4 onwards: tanks/mechs 2 chinese MIC + carriers and airI did the all out J1 as I described in my plan of action. UK + ANZAC both very aggressive taking money islands, but I could therefore destroy their fleets in J2 and still take those islands. I send my transports to Caroline Islands J2 together with main fleet, pressuring ANZAC in defensive mode, with USA in pursuit. Then J3 I combined fleet at FIC (taking Malaya) and J4 I took India. All the time I had most of my air destroying China (Siberians in J2) and China was dead in J6.
Germany and Italy also very succesful. UK made a mistake with not doing Taranto and building factory in Egypt, I took Trans-Jordan I1 and Egypt in I2. It had taked Egypt was 1 tank left, then I send 3 german bombers to help defend it. UK could attack with 1 tactical, 2 fighters and 1 infantry. 2 Bombers hit and secure Egypt for the Axis! German started to reinforce it with 2 inf and air the turns after to hold it against UK attacks.
G1: 2 subs, 1 bomber
G2: 8 tanks, 2 mech, bombers
G3: 10 mech, bombers
G4 onwards: some infantry, artillery and bombersGermany had a very miserable G1, most fleet attacks dying without succes. Also 110 was very painful, losing some air. I sticked to my plan of G3DOW, concentrated my troops and was able to take Moscow in G6 because of Russian defensive mindset in Ukraine + Leningrad, so I could bypass. In G7 I had stalingrad, moscow and egypt and would have take Leningrad in G8.
Italy had 25 IPC throughout the game. Isolated in Egypt but in firm control.
I was helped that both my allies played their nations for first time again since a long time, so had to figure out again how they worked. Also their teamwork could have been stronger, especially in pacific. I did make sure UK had no fleet throughout the game so it was difficult for USA to have can opening allies.
-
Great job, merry Christmas.
-
@CWO-Marc said in Pearl Harbour Attack:
@taamvan said in Pearl Harbour Attack:
Love it. While chess isn’t my personal favorite, it is a model for wargaming. Its amazing that with such a limited set of starting options and pieces, that the game has a tremendous following and has, in all its variants, for centuries.
Some people believe that the sides in chess are equal. This is a misconception; the players start with symmetrical forces, but the White player has + one more unit of initiative, and the Black player has + one more piece of information (what White did). This is a good analogy to our favorite game, and is the starting point for all “asymmetrical” wargames, where the players share common units types and resources, but are each different and unique.
I once heard about a Russian chess grandmaster (I forget who, so I’ll call him So-and-So) who was asked whether he prefers to play the white or black pieces. He answered: “It makes no difference to me. When I play white, I win because I play first. When I play black, I win because I am So-and-So.”
That was Efim Bogoljubov, father of the Bogo-Indian Defense. The quote definitely fit his temperament. :)
Suggested Topics
