This is an issue I wish the game by vanilla would just let you turn over control of territory to your allies as this happened a lot between Germany and Italy. I have allowed enemies forces to capture a territory just so I can turn it over to another.
UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
-
@Argothair that is exactly what I mean. I ve only played one game where London fell and it did go well for the allies, but I’d rather avoid it. You’re not shaken by the development?
On a strategic level: save London, Atlantic, Moscow, Egypt, India, China, Pac. Should these be thought of in terms of priority and/or chronology? I based my objectives on Churchill s memoirs and his strategies. I think Larry Harris made a game in which that strategy is effective.
-
@randyshervandyke Well, everybody has their own approach to the game, and if you get your kicks from emulating Churchill, I certainly won’t try to stop you! For my part, it’s not particularly easy to screw with my head, and I’m happy to trade apparently vital assets like London in exchange for winning the game – that’s part of why I like Operation Ricochet so much! You’re giving up territories (Egypt, India, etc.) that most people fight tooth-and-nail to hold on to because you think it improves your odds of a win. I feel much the same way about London – it can be scary to lose your capital and see Italy start gobbling up UK possessions while the UK is powerless to resist, but if Germany spends 50 IPCs on transports, loses 100 IPCs in planes, and loses another 50 IPCs in tanks and infantry, they just cannot recover. The 30 IPCs you loot from England and the 20 IPC/turn swing you get from conquering British territories simply can’t make up your losses in the 2 to 3 turns that you can hold England for. If you try to hold England for longer than 3 turns, Russia marches into Berlin from the east. It’s just not profitable to conquer a reasonably well-defended London, and so I’m not afraid to invite my opponent to lose his shirt taking my capital.
@GeneralHandGrenade Yup, I mostly agree with that – my usual preference is to Kill Italy First, for exactly the reasons you describe, but I’m enjoying Operation Ricochet as a promising alternative for shaking things up.
-
@Argothair I went to Grasshoppers Invitational last year and it was all the rage. Had it done to us. Recapturing it was the last roll of the 1st day of the tournament. I did it with one tank left and tied the game. Of course Russia was wreaking havoc in Eastern Europe, and I had loosed Russia armor and mechs upon the Japanese to punish them for Sealion. They ended up recapturing India for the Allies the very next turn.
General, from an Axis perspective that does seem like the easiest way to take out the Franco-English navy. A different tack would be an air base in Egypt 2nd turn and move the 2nd Franco-English navy through the Suez. In all of my scheming, I’m trying to secure North Africa as quickly as possible, the Med when possible. Keep this a secret, but Italy can still get up to 19 dollars per turn without any assets in Africa.
-
I’ve tried this strategy (the middle earth, not operation ricochet) against myself yesterday. I did make some mistakes, and left calcutta too vurnareble, with not enough strike force to take it back. But besides that, I had the japanese navy, or at least 2AC + some extra, sitting in SZ39 (outside of calcutta) in J3. This prevented me from being able to shuck to persia, and I had to go to egypt with the South African transports.
I imagine that even if I did not make the mistake and Calcutta did not fall J4, but is just “disabled” till more japanese land troops can arrive, the threat of the navy on SZ80 (persia) would prevent me from shucking troops there, and thus halving the troops that can reach calcutta due to only the persian factory being able to supply by land. How would I deal with this? You state threatening Japan with US/ANZAC. How, roughly speaking, would I go about that?
In this specific example, Japan had a naval base, air base, and factory in FIC, so pretty much the entire Asian coastline is in reach of most of the aircrafts, and several ships. With US focusing on the creation of the 4 lane highway, they do not have enough ships to resist a counterattack, and not enough transports to threaten a permanent beachhead.
So how then do I deal with a Japanese navy blockading Calcutta and threatening SZ80’s transport shuck?
-
1 answer. Sealion
-
@TrippleX Well, Japan is vulnerable in a few different places on its border with America. If the main US Pacific fleet is sitting in Hawaii (relatively safe; the airbase helps protect it and it’s one turn from San Francisco’s reinforcements), then it’s only one turn away from Tokyo, so Japan has to waste a destroyer every turn blocking that route, which the US can sink at a profit with fighters and subs. If you can safely advance the US fleet to Midway or Wake, then Japan has to dump 2 destroyers a turn to block the sea routes. If you can get as far as the Caroline Islands (not unreasonable by turn 4 or 5), now you are in range of any Japanese factories on the Chinese coast, plus the Philippines, plus the money islands, plus Tokyo. At that point Japan can’t realistically block you because you have too many targets, so they are forced to keep enough resources in range of your fleet that they can push you back out. This is very challenging for Japan to do early on without either retreating their fleet from the Indian Ocean or retreating their planes from central China. If they do pull resources over to threaten the US fleet, then you just retreat back to Wake, or Midway, or even to Hawaii, but the point is now Japan has moved backward, and probably spent some money on carriers instead of just building factories and mechs, so their push into mainland Asia is that much slower.
As far as the blockade and an attack on the transport shuck specifically, I wouldn’t worry too much about it. You can afford to lose a transport or two near Persia if they deliver their cargo first, and you can afford to lose India’s income if Japan wants to leave their fleet in the Indian Ocean; it’ll cost Japan more to build a second fleet to fight in the central Pacific then they’ll gain by denying India its mid-game 6 IPCs/turn.
The way to win as the Allies in Global 1940 is to set up more threats than the Axis can counter. The Japanese can nuke your West Indian shuck-shuck, or they can keep the US Pacific Fleet at bay, or they can conquer India, or they can conquer inland China and Siberia, but they can’t do all of those in the first 7 turns, and so whatever fronts survive will be a place where you can push back and fight for control. Don’t over-invest in any one of those threats, be willing to change your spending or your front lines as appropriate, and keep applying pressure where-ever you can afford to do so.
Same thing with the European theater, really – Germany can repeatedly nuke the British Atlantic fleet, or reinforce Norway so it’ll hold against an early US attack, or put enough pressure on Russia with mechs and tanks that they have to retreat to Moscow or even into the Urals, or capture Ukraine and Stalingrad, or help Italy take Egypt, but they can’t do all of that at once in the first 7 turns, so you’ll wind up with some active fronts where the Allies are making gains, and you exploit those for all they’re worth and let the others go at the appropriate time. At least, that’s my philosophy.
-
@Argothair In order for the Axis to even have a chance against Middle Earth U.K Japan needs to do a J1 attack. Not just any J1 attack but they need to do the 4 move check-mate as I call it. If you’re unaware of what that is it’s where the Japanese take their 2 carriers’ planes 2 destroyers and sub to do a Pearl Harbor attack. You will destroy the fleet scramble or no scramble. Next you need the U.S to size you up and destroy your blocker in the Hawaiian islands with their San Francisco fleet. And to top of the check-mate Japan brings in their 2 fighters and 2 tactical bombers from the island of Japan as well as the 4 planes on their carriers (Japan should have taken Wake Island to land the 4 extra planes). With that, The entirety of the U.S fleet has single highhandedly been destroyed by Japan as early as Round 2. And with no American navy that leaves you to send your navy into the Indian Ocean to disrupt GHG’s transport shuck of guys into the Middle East and thus pretty much throw the strategy.
-
@Luftwaffles41 Pearl Harbor gets discussed a lot – see, e.g., here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/31312/pearl-harbour/9.
The problem with J1 Pearl Harbor is that you take forces away from Yunnan, the money islands, Australia, and India. So, yeah, you can destroy the US fleet if you want, but that just means the other Pacific Allies can beat Japan on their own. By the time you get your navy from Hawaii back to India, India and ANZAC will be monsters.
Also, Japan goes before the UK – so if you’re truly concerned that a Pearl Harbor attack would wreck Middle Earth, just play a different strategy with the UK after you see the Pearl Harbor attack. No big deal. What is your favorite UK strategy? What UK openings do you think would work well against Pearl Harbor?
-
@Argothair Frankly there is nothing thr U.K really can do to affect the circumstances of the J1 attack as a whole. And to clarify your point Japan should not be taking anything away from the original J1 attack. All they are doing is sending 2 aircraft carriers and a couple destroyers and a submarine to Pearl. So you’re point that anzac and U.K pacific becoming monsters is genuinely irrational and an illogical statement. And as for my personal U.K opening it just all varies on what Germany is doing. If they attempt Sealion then its pretty obvious what im doing… And if they go Afrika Korps then I would more then likely go for defense of the Middle East. But thats just my opinion.
-
Also the point in place is U.K doing Middle Earth because thats more than likely the one strategy thats got the axis stumped on what to do. And NOTE: this strategy all revolves to America. If they’re spending 80% of their money to Japan then Middle Earth would fail from the combined joint invasion of Germany and Italy.
-
I mean, if you’re taking Wake Island J1, then you’re pulling at least one transport away from the standard J1 attack, and that has immediate consequences – you are either only bringing one transport to the Philippines, meaning you are attacking with 1 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 tac against 2 inf, 1 ftr, and you could easily get diced, or you are skipping the attack on Borneo, which means that India will be richer and you will be slower to collect the money island NO, if you can collect it at all. With only 2 transports in Indonesia for the first couple of turns, your attack is slower by one territory every turn – the infantry that took Borneo could have moved on to take, e.g., Java, but if it wasn’t on Borneo yet then it can’t continue on. So you’re not just down 4 IPCs for one turn; you’re down 4 IPCs for each of the first few turns. There’s also a problem where if you leave the Allies any toeholds in the money islands, then your transports need to be defended – if you take every money island, the Allies need carriers to harass you and they don’t have any carriers in the opening, but if you leave one of the islands in Dutch hands then Indian / ANZAC planes can land there after sinking your transports.
Normally defending your transports wouldn’t be a big problem, but if you’re sending 2 CV, 2 DD, 1 SS to Hawaii then you’re running pretty low on boats. Your starting cruiser has to go to Singapore to fight the British BB there on J1 and may be lost in that battle or by an Indian counter-attack. So the Japanese southern fleet is something like 1 SS, 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB.
The British start with 3 DD, 2 CA, 1 CV in the eastern Med + India, which is only very slightly weaker than the Japanese forces you have available – the British could build a couple of subs and get to parity if they’re feeling frisky, or they could just force you to concentrate your fleet in one sea zone, and then you’ll be losing 1-2 Japanese transports every turn as they get picked off by Allied fighters. ANZAC is also potentially a problem – you can’t attack their starting fleet if you are going for Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on J1, so they have a DD, a CA, and 15 IPCs of income turn 1 from Dutch New Guinea that can buy a couple more subs.
Meanwhile, there is no naval base on Wake, so if you move carriers to Wake on J1, they can reach Caroline Islands on J2, Java on J3, and India on J4, assuming no blockers at all and no need to remain near Wake for even one turn to mop up American resistance. Neither assumption is guaranteed.
There’s nothing wrong with launching a Pearl Harbor attack if the Middle Earth defense is what worries you the most as Axis; you’re right to point out that Pearl Harbor makes Middle Earth somewhat less attractive. I don’t think Pearl Harbor is as strong as you think it is, either in general or against Middle Earth specifically. Want to try it out on TripleA? I’ll take the Allies with 24 IPCs in standard or no bid in Balanced Mod, and I’ll play my Middle Earth against your Pearl Harbor.
-
I get where your concern comes from but let me give you a broader perception of all this. To cover your points I’m going to go one by one to help you understand this attack and the benefits and success you can reap from it.
@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
I mean, if you’re taking Wake Island J1, then you’re pulling at least one transport away from the standard J1 attack, and that has immediate consequences – you are either only bringing one transport to the Philippines, meaning you are attacking with 1 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 tac against 2 inf, 1 ftr, and you could easily get diced, or you are skipping the attack on Borneo, which means that India will be richer and you will be slower to collect the money island NO, if you can collect it at all. With only 2 transports in Indonesia for the first couple of turns, your attack is slower by one territory every turn – the infantry that took Borneo could have moved on to take, e.g., Java, but if it wasn’t on Borneo yet then it can’t continue on. So you’re not just down 4 IPCs for one turn; you’re down 4 IPCs for each of the first few turns. There’s also a problem where if you leave the Allies any toeholds in the money islands, then your transports need to be defended – if you take every money island, the Allies need carriers to harass you and they don’t have any carriers in the opening, but if you leave one of the islands in Dutch hands then Indian / ANZAC planes can land there after sinking your transports.
Japan begins with 3 transports. 2 of them on the coast of China (SZ 19, SZ 20). These 2 will brings 4 units and attack the Philippine Islands along with the Fighter and Tac Bomber from the carrier next to the Caroline Islands so you’re idea of being diced really doesn’t work here. Am I skipping the attack on Borneo? Yes. Is it going to cost me? No. Do you know that India only has 17 ipcs? And thats with Borneo. As I stated before, you’ll have 4 guys to then send to Celebes, Java, Sumatra and Borneo with your 2 transports and take all 4 of them if you so choose. And assuming that U.K is doing a Middle Earth strategy they won’t be using that small fleet to cross the triangle of Persia, SA, and Egypt. Your transports will be defended by 1 carrier with 2 fighters on it, and 2 battleships. If that’s not enough then maybe you’re infantry can personally swim out to protect the transport. ANZAC only has 1 fighter. Literally one. If they wanna spend that 10 ipcs on another fighter then they can. It wont make a difference.
Normally defending your transports wouldn’t be a big problem, but if you’re sending 2 CV, 2 DD, 1 SS to Hawaii then you’re running pretty low on boats. Your starting cruiser has to go to Singapore to fight the British BB there on J1 and may be lost in that battle or by an Indian counter-attack. So the Japanese southern fleet is something like 1 SS, 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB.
1 Aircraft Carrier (1 fighter, 1 Tac Bomber), 2 battleships, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 1 submarine. I suppose that’s a small and insignificant fleet to ANZAC and U.K Pacific.
The British start with 3 DD, 2 CA, 1 CV in the eastern Med + India, which is only very slightly weaker than the Japanese forces you have available – the British could build a couple of subs and get to parity if they’re feeling frisky, or they could just force you to concentrate your fleet in one sea zone, and then you’ll be losing 1-2 Japanese transports every turn as they get picked off by Allied fighters. ANZAC is also potentially a problem – you can’t attack their starting fleet if you are going for Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on J1, so they have a DD, a CA, and 15 IPCs of income turn 1 from Dutch New Guinea that can buy a couple more subs.
Unless the British are invading Tobruk, they’d be absolutely stupid in the head not to do the Taranto Raid. Especially if they plan on focusing their resources into a full force Middle Earth strategy. Yes, build 12 ipcs of sea units that totally won’t not be utterly destroyed at any point in the game. The British only have 2 fighters and 1 Tac Bomber in India. What they plan to do with it is unknown to me. But I’d welcome them attacking my fleet to take out the one air force they can’t even afford to rebuild in 2 turns. And yes you can attack ANZAC’s destroyer and transport with the destroyer you have in SZ 33. Take out the destroyer and transport with no scramble and the cruiser comes after you manage to hit a 1 or 2 and you destroyed the entirety of ANZAC’s navy. Once again, by all means spend 12 ipcs on units that will totally be there to see the dawn of sunrise over the American Flag in Tokyo…
Meanwhile, there is no naval base on Wake, so if you move carriers to Wake on J1, they can reach Caroline Islands on J2, Java on J3, and India on J4, assuming no blockers at all and no need to remain near Wake for even one turn to mop up American resistance. Neither assumption is guaranteed.
There is an airbase. And there’s a specific reason for taking Wake Island. Because that one island is what’s going to decide the life or death of the ENTIRE American Pacific fleet if they move their San Francisco fleet to challenge yours. Frankly any of my starting navy on the coast of Japan would be overkill in a natural J1 attack which would be a waste of valuable resources.
There’s nothing wrong with launching a Pearl Harbor attack if the Middle Earth defense is what worries you the most as Axis; you’re right to point out that Pearl Harbor makes Middle Earth somewhat less attractive. I don’t think Pearl Harbor is as strong as you think it is, either in general or against Middle Earth specifically. Want to try it out on TripleA? I’ll take the Allies with 24 IPCs in standard or no bid in Balanced Mod, and I’ll play my Middle Earth against your Pearl Harbor.
Don’t misunderstand me. All I’m killing is a Transport, Submarine, Cruiser and Destroyer, nothing to wright home about. What is to wright home about is if the American fleet on San Francisco moves down to secure Hawaii from you. And believe me when I say it I’ll put everything on the line to destroy that American fleet. Because once that fleet dies any chance of the Allies winning goes with it. But take it with a grain of salt if you must. Believe me it sounds easy to have 70+ ipcs as America but if you’re really willing to let the Japanese win with 6 victory cities or rebuild your navy from scratch and allow Germany to do Operation Sealion.
-
I’m enjoying the conversation, and I think you’re raising worthwhile points, but I still disagree with you on the specifics. Here is why:
As I stated before, you’ll have 4 guys to then send to Celebes, Java, Sumatra and Borneo with your 2 transports and take all 4 of them if you so choose.
That’s assuming you take no casualties in the Philippines, lose no transports before J3, and take no casualties killing off any reinforcements delivered by India / ANZAC. You can take the Philippines plus the 4 money islands with 2 transports and 4 ground units, but you’re spreading yourself thin and it’s not guaranteed.
ANZAC only has 1 fighter. Literally one.
I count 3 – in addition to the fighter in Queensland there are 2 in New Zealand that can land on Java as early as A1. All 3 fighters are close enough to the action to interfere with Japanese takeover of the money islands.
Your transports will be defended by 1 carrier with 2 fighters on it, and 2 battleships.
Sorry, I thought you were sending one of the BBs east to Pearl Harbor. Sounds like both BBs are going south. So what’s attacking Pearl Harbor? Just 1 SS, 2 DD, 2 ftr, and 2 tac? Against that force, I would probably not scramble the Hawaiian fighters, and then counter-attack the Hawaiian sea zone on US1 with something like 1 DD, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 tac. That should handily win control of the sea zone against 1 SS, 2 DD, allowing me to reinforce Hawaii with the transport on non-combat. So now Hawaii has 4 inf, 4 ftr defending it against a maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 tac, which seems fine to me. If I lose Hawaii at all, it will be very expensive for Japan, and I can retake it immediately. I hear you that you are baiting the main US fleet into Hawaii and that you could sink that fleet if it moves there on US1, but all I have to do is not take the bait, and I should be fine. You’re forcing the US to invest some significant spending in the Pacific on US1 and US2, which could make a Sea Lion attack more threatening. I suppose if I saw a Pearl Harbor on J1 I would adjust the UK1 buy – instead of 1 transport, 1 artillery for South Africa and 2 inf, 1 fighter for London I might do something like 6 inf for London and 2 mech for South Africa, save $1.
And yes you can attack ANZAC’s destroyer and transport with the destroyer you have in SZ 33. Take out the destroyer and transport with no scramble and the cruiser comes after you manage to hit a 1 or 2 and you destroyed the entirety of ANZAC’s navy.
Sure, you can attack 1 DD vs. 1 DD, 1 trans and you might get lucky, or you might not. If you’re sending 2 DDs to Pearl Harbor and 1 DD to Australia, that leaves you with only 1 DD to escort your southern fleet, which, again, will make it tricky to cover multiple sea zones to protect your transports. With 2 BB, your main southern fleet will be safe enough, but the flanks are vulnerable, in my opinion.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about the ANZAC cruiser, other than that you expect to both win a 50-50 battle with the destroyers and then also sink the cruiser with like 20% odds when Australia counter-attacks your DD with 1 CA, 1 ftr. So, yeah, 10% of the time you’ll get quite lucky and sink the ANZAC navy. So? That’s dice, not strategy.
Frankly any of my starting navy on the coast of Japan would be overkill in a natural J1 attack which would be a waste of valuable resources.
This is maybe your most interesting point – Japan does start with slightly more navy than it really needs to conquer and occupy the south Pacific, so there’s an interesting question of how to put that navy to gainful employment right away. I’m not sure I like your answer of attacking Pearl and stacking Wake, but I like that you’re asking the question.
What is to write home about is if the American fleet on San Francisco moves down to secure Hawaii from you.
Well, yeah, so, don’t do that. Don’t fall for the trap. You can secure Hawaii without moving the remaining US capital ships there immediately. It’s a good trap, but it’s still just a trap. It’s easy enough for the Allies to avoid.
Unless the British are invading Tobruk, they’d be absolutely stupid in the head not to do the Taranto Raid.
I can do the Taranto raid and still wind up with significant naval assets to send east, if I’ve got a bid. One of my favorite bids is 2 subs for the Mediterranean, which means the carrier doesn’t have to go west to do Taranto.
If I’ve got no bid, that means we’re playing Balanced Mod, which means you have some explaining to do about how you’re going to handle the Chinese guerrillas with zero reinforcements on J1 and at most 3 transports of reinforcements on J2.
Overall, don’t get me wrong; I think your plan of attack is interesting and worth experimenting with. Pearl Harbor plus Sea Lion as you’ve outlined it sounds like a very creative way of shaking things up against Middle Earth, and if you catch the Allied player off guard or if they fall for your traps or if they roll poorly, then you could have quite a nice game as the Axis. My personal preference as the Axis is to play with a more traditional India Crush that focuses on shutting down Indian income as quickly as possible and taking India J4 or J5, with Germany going east to take Leningrad and Ukraine by G5. The idea is that if the US focuses on the Atlantic, then Japan can expand from India to take some combination of Persia, South Africa, Australia, and/or Hawaii, forcing the US to pivot back to the Pacific. Conversely, if the US focuses on the Pacific, then Germany will wind up at the very least being able to push Russia out of the Caucauses and take the southern money. When Germany gets rich like that, they can threaten London while holding the line near Moscow, forcing the US to pivot back to the Atlantic. Either way, the US supply chain gets messed up and slows them down.
Do you want to try out a game? Might be enlightening for both of us.
-
@Argothair I appreciate your thoughts here.
I’ve been considering an old fashion strategy. Antique really. What about rolling us tanks Either through Asia Or n Africa or both to supply middle eArth. This seems to provide the most efficient shuck possible with the smallest number of transports needed. 6 or 8 tanks into Eurasia/Africa as early as t4?
It prevents the swallowing up of Siberia by the Japanese. It gets Tanks into s Russia by t8 or 9 and provides waves. I’m thinking about presenting this as USA for dumbies. transports are the poison we have to drink.
-
@Argothair I just reread this and I must say you are right on the money. And your critiques have come to pass. I’m definitely revisiting this.
-
@crockett36 I reread your turn by turn modification of my version of middle earth
-
@Argothair
I like where you’re coming from. But I’ll counterfute what you’ve said to give you a better idea of the J1 attack.@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
That’s assuming you take no casualties in the Philippines, lose no transports before J3, and take no casualties killing off any reinforcements delivered by India / ANZAC. You can take the Philippines plus the 4 money islands with 2 transports and 4 ground units, but you’re spreading yourself thin and it’s not guaranteed.
True. With the U.S rolling 2 at 2 and 1 at 4 you’re granted to lose at least one unit which would obviously be an infantry but that’s not to say the fighter’s always going to hit. I’m not sure what you’re referring to by losing no transports on J3. By the time J3 rolls around you should have built atleast 3-5 more transports to shuck units as well as place factories in their respective areas such as Kiangsu, Kwangtung and Malaya. Depends on what ANZAC does with their small fleet. As the ANZAC player I would personally make it my mission to keep the fleet I have out of Japanese hands which means I won’t be trying to race for the money islands. Even if I did take Java or Celebes as ANZAC, it would last for like 1 turn? It’s not worth over 20 ipcs worth of naval units only to get an infantry unit worth of territory once.
I count 3 – in addition to the fighter in Queensland there are 2 in New Zealand that can land on Java as early as A1. All 3 fighters are close enough to the action to interfere with Japanese takeover of the money islands.
Yeah that’s totally my bad. I forgot about the setup in which they also have a fighter on New Zealand that’s my mistake sorry. And as I said, with a fleet like Japan’s, ANZAC shouldn’t be throwing their fighters at that fleet at any cost due to just how many little IPC’s they posses. And unlike Italy, they genuinely aren’t capable of possessing more without NO money (that is there’s not a J1 attack, allowing them to jump on Java and Celebes).
Sorry, I thought you were sending one of the BBs east to Pearl Harbor. Sounds like both BBs are going south. So what’s attacking Pearl Harbor? Just 1 SS, 2 DD, 2 ftr, and 2 tac? Against that force, I would probably not scramble the Hawaiian fighters, and then counter-attack the Hawaiian sea zone on US1 with something like 1 DD, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 tac. That should handily win control of the sea zone against 1 SS, 2 DD, allowing me to reinforce Hawaii with the transport on non-combat. So now Hawaii has 4 inf, 4 ftr defending it against a maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 tac, which seems fine to me. If I lose Hawaii at all, it will be very expensive for Japan, and I can retake it immediately. I hear you that you are baiting the main US fleet into Hawaii and that you could sink that fleet if it moves there on US1, but all I have to do is not take the bait, and I should be fine. You’re forcing the US to invest some significant spending in the Pacific on US1 and US2, which could make a Sea Lion attack more threatening. I suppose if I saw a Pearl Harbor on J1 I would adjust the UK1 buy – instead of 1 transport, 1 artillery for South Africa and 2 inf, 1 fighter for London I might do something like 6 inf for London and 2 mech for South Africa, save $1.
It’s alright I should’ve clarified that both the battleships would be going up against the submarine and destroyer in the Philippines. What’s attack Pearl is exactly what you stated being the submarine and 2 destroyers with the 2 fighters and tactical bombers going to Pearl. Your carrier strike group will be going to Wake Island to land the fighters. I wouldn’t scramble the fighters either for purposes of landing them on AC’s and also because the fight still tips in the 90’s for Japan even with the scramble. That’s the idea. It doesn’t matter what you have left after the raid of Pearl Harbor whether you have 1, 2 to all of your ships still there. It’s supposed to pull the Americans in to want to strike at the vulnerable 2 aircraft carriers that cannot escape even if they move 2 since there is no naval base as you stated on Wake Island. I think you’re misunderstanding the Pearl Harbor attack the idea is not to land and get boots on the ground in Hawaii. Frankly you’d be right about not moving your fleet there. As the U.K player myself, unless I saw even the slightest chance of Germany attempting Sea Lion I would see no need to purchase ground units on the main island. The U.K is subjected to requirement of spending their IPC’s efficiently and in the right area where the game will be played because if they put all their units in the wrong area then you’ve lost.
Sure, you can attack 1 DD vs. 1 DD, 1 trans and you might get lucky, or you might not. If you’re sending 2 DDs to Pearl Harbor and 1 DD to Australia, that leaves you with only 1 DD to escort your southern fleet, which, again, will make it tricky to cover multiple sea zones to protect your transports. With 2 BB, your main southern fleet will be safe enough, but the flanks are vulnerable, in my opinion.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about the ANZAC cruiser, other than that you expect to both win a 50-50 battle with the destroyers and then also sink the cruiser with like 20% odds when Australia counter-attacks your DD with 1 CA, 1 ftr. So, yeah, 10% of the time you’ll get quite lucky and sink the ANZAC navy. So? That’s dice, not strategy.
1 DD vs 1 DD is exactly what Germany does against the Canadian fleet. It’s 50/50 fighting you might hit you might not. Are you losing anything in return? Yes a destroyer. Anything else? Nope only a good attempt at winning the game for yourself. If having trouble guarding your transports is your concern then keep em together. If you’re going to split them off then make sure they can all reunite back to the same sea zone where your fleet is after you’ve attacked any islands you desired to attack. Simple as that. By all means I’m not saying that it’s a winning fight if your destroyer manages to survive against the 50/50 gamble to fight the cruiser. What I’m saying is that the destroyer will more then likely die but at the cost of taking down a 12 ipc unit (or 10 if they hit a fighter, which i’m totally okay with as well). Dice not strategy? You’re absolutely right. It is dice. But it’s the little part in dice that forms the ominous and pretty unstoppable strategy that is the J1 attack. And frankly for how much you’ve been admiring the ANZAC fleet makes it awefully bold of you laugh it off as if it’s not anything to worry about.
This is maybe your most interesting point – Japan does start with slightly more navy than it really needs to conquer and occupy the south Pacific, so there’s an interesting question of how to put that navy to gainful employment right away. I’m not sure I like your answer of attacking Pearl and stacking Wake, but I like that you’re asking the question.
If you could identify the PACIFIC fleet that will be challenging Japan’s as earliest as turn 3 then I’ll agree with your remarks on this part of your counter-claim. Otherwise, send your boats wherever you want.
Well, yeah, so, don’t do that. Don’t fall for the trap. You can secure Hawaii without moving the remaining US capital ships there immediately. It’s a good trap, but it’s still just a trap. It’s easy enough for the Allies to avoid.
It’s incredibly easy to not pull the lever after you’ve seen what it activates, if that wasn’t obvious enough. This isn’t some half-arse trap that the Americans will just see through instantly. Because frankly if you knew that there were no other surface warships in the sea of Japan that would come down to attack you in the Hawaiian islands then absolutely I’d be on full throttle towards what is over 60 ipcs worth of units that I’ll be able to destroy without taking many losses. But as I said, unless the Americans have a cautious and slow moving player, or if he/she has been subjected to this trap before then yeah they won’t fall for it and won’t even consider the temptation of trying to destroy the fleet. Otherwise, you’re practically looking for the Fruit Loop in the Lucky Charms which represents the 4 planes you’ll be sending from Japan.
I can do the Taranto raid and still wind up with significant naval assets to send east, if I’ve got a bid. One of my favorite bids is 2 subs for the Mediterranean, which means the carrier doesn’t have to go west to do Taranto.
If I’ve got no bid, that means we’re playing Balanced Mod, which means you have some explaining to do about how you’re going to handle the Chinese guerrillas with zero reinforcements on J1 and at most 3 transports of reinforcements on J2.
Overall, don’t get me wrong; I think your plan of attack is interesting and worth experimenting with. Pearl Harbor plus Sea Lion as you’ve outlined it sounds like a very creative way of shaking things up against Middle Earth, and if you catch the Allied player off guard or if they fall for your traps or if they roll poorly, then you could have quite a nice game as the Axis. My personal preference as the Axis is to play with a more traditional India Crush that focuses on shutting down Indian income as quickly as possible and taking India J4 or J5, with Germany going east to take Leningrad and Ukraine by G5. The idea is that if the US focuses on the Atlantic, then Japan can expand from India to take some combination of Persia, South Africa, Australia, and/or Hawaii, forcing the US to pivot back to the Pacific. Conversely, if the US focuses on the Pacific, then Germany will wind up at the very least being able to push Russia out of the Caucauses and take the southern money. When Germany gets rich like that, they can threaten London while holding the line near Moscow, forcing the US to pivot back to the Atlantic. Either way, the US supply chain gets messed up and slows them down.
Unlikely if Germany is smart and sends a plane to Southern Italy for the 3 plane scramble. In that case unless the axis get diced, everything is going to the bottom of the Med. Another part of the Japanese philosophy is to continue moving forward. It would be incredibly inefficient for Japan to shuck units from the island to the mainland which is why you’ll be building a minor complex J1 and place it on Shanghai. You’ll also be placing on J2 on Hong Kong as well and one on Malaya when you inevitably take it. So there’s you’re reinforcements. Absolutely no offense to the way you play the Axis, but that’s how everybody played it originally before the J1 attack was drafted which led to everybody believing that the game tipped in the favor of the Allied Powers in winning. Believe me unless America and the U.K are playing patty cake with each other while Germany and Japan do the absolute usual then this won’t work out for them. As for your Calcutta Crush, that works. Only Calcutta won’t win you the game. Honolulu or Sydney will. Unless Germany has some sort of magical trick up their sleeves, there’s no deciding and going back on which strategy you want to do. That’s why for the first 3 turns that Germany is not at war that’s the time they have to decide if they’re going Sealion, Afrika Korps, or Barbarossa. And frankly as long as the U.S keeps Hawaii out of Japan’s reach then they can feel free to just spend all of their money in the Atlantic. hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is essential. You might not get the Americans to pull that lever and fall for the trap but what you will do is you’ll be putting Pearl Harbor in you palm to control for however long you keep your fleet there in Wake Island. And you can keep your fleet there until you absolutely need it back home on the forefront of Asia or you can continue to keep there as the Americans keep their fleet in San Francisco.
I’m really likeing this debate. I can tell you’re a more adept player at Global 40 which isn’t easy to come by. If you have any counter arguments, I welcome them all good sir. :)
-
@Argothair That was very well said. " they can’t do all of that at once in the first 7 turns, so you’ll wind up with some active fronts where the Allies are making gains, and you exploit those for all they’re worth and let the others go at the appropriate time. At least, that’s my philosophy."
… For me this is exactly the right attitude to win games. You probe and probe and see what turns up for short term gain and long term end game.
The logistics of this game are very interesting. Once Japan takes India, they are at a bit of a loss of what to do and how to do it. In a way, they are out of position. Assuming the Allies have prepped Hawaii and Australia well enough to hold out for a long time. If Japan goes for either, it removes any pressure from Russia and the ME. It’s a very interesting dilemma If the US has prepped well enough, they can spend 18 IPC’s messing with Germany indirectly, while UK messes with Italy directly or supports USSR directly via the ME. Again these are just novice musing; I’ve only played 4 test games of this behemoth so I could be way way off base.
I’m so impatient to learn this game enough to start competitng online. Another month and I think I’ll be ready to put my toe in. (I’ve got a lot on my plate this month).
-
Then let me introduce you to the Floating Bridge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkjC0E42d0
-
Japanese Philosophy should always be to continue moving forward. After they’ve taken India they are that much closer to winning the game for the Axis. And if you’re going to say “prepared” then you need to be more specific of what the Americans have purchased in the Pacific Ocean because it is way too open to interpretation when they possess 70+ IPC’s when at war. I’m not sure why everybody and their mom’s cat’s stepsister assumes that automatically when Japan starts going for ANZAC or the U.S that they are taking all pressure off the USSR. Its a little something known as 2 military campaigns in 1 war. That would be like saying Germany is taking all pressure of the Soviets when they move some troops down to Africa to support Italy :/ . Because Unless you play with the token system all Japan needs are 6 victory cities. Say what you want about the taking of ANZAC but as far as I’m concerned if they aren’t building ground units to protect themselves every turn then they are going to fall to the Japanese. Tell me otherwise.
Suggested Topics
