Brainstorming: What's the best way to kill the Japanese Fleet?

[Imperious Leader]

Because you said that you are consolidating your ENTIRE fleet at Midway on J2, that means that on J1, you are sending NO naval units to the naval battle for the Philippines, and you are not hitting the British dd+tr in sz35.

I said that but for turn J2 not J1.

[souL]

The Soviet 7 inf stack = 21 IPCs, and seven dice for 2 if attacked in J1.  The US BB = 20 IPCs and 1 die for 4.  It’s a no-brainer to me, I want that Soviet pile attacked if I’m the allies.  The BB is infinitely more useful when it’s got other ships with it instead of stranded alone in sz 53.  Also, for 1 IPC more the Soviets are going to get a shot at killing MANY more Japanese units, and if he brings more than 3 ground units, you’re doing much too well in other places to worry about the lack of value of the units you kill compared to the ones the BB might (or might not) kill.

Not only that, it’s leaving even more American or British units alive because every land and air unit fighting for that 1 IPC territory on turn 1 isn’t going at a 2 or 7 IPC Phillipines, Hawaii which is the only real way to complete a first turn 3 NO grab for JP, 4 IPC Borneo, 4 IPC EI, Kwangtung/New Guinea which completes the 2nd NO. 2 IPC burma, SZ 35 which is very valuable to the Brits.  AFAIC, the 7 inf Red stack is about the LEAST of JP’s worries on turn 1.  America and Britain need to be taxed or you’ll find yourself monetarily dominated VERY quickly in the Pacific.

[Imperious Leader]

yea and the BB that japan leaves alone may just go to Europe which takes out of the game for a few turns, and taking or ruining 7 infantry will get a jump on the Soviets forcing them to shuck more to the east. Usually i still got my tank so i can blitz the next turn empty territories.

If i don’t take out Buryatia force and the Americans decide to go after japan, then i got less to worry about because the 7 infantry are more of a threat than one BB, if japan is forced to buy naval for a few turns. The less opposing infantry and the Manchurian factory make it so i don’t need to worry so much about transports shucking, when they can take India and Australia.

Also the amphibious attacks now allow retreat at least for the infantry that moved by land, so its not really a gamble at all attacking Buryatia, while no matter what you can hold your new factory so you can start buying tanks.

The second factory candidate is for India.

[souL]

Yes, the Russians are dead and the units they’ve taken with them are generally on par, IPC wise, of those taken by the US BB.  My argument is the long range ramifications of JP are at least two-fold worse for leaving that BB around, up to and including fighting for the big money in the SW Pacific.

Firstly, if 50 is cleared but not taken… depending on what’s in that SZ, it’s vulnerable to BB, bmb, ftr.  It’s not entirely appetizing, but if it’s just the BB, I’m going to take my shot to kill it in 1 turn at 0 value loss to America.  I’d also be tempted to just send the ftr and bmb at it, but that’s probably a poor risk as you’re giving up anything that stays there, anyhow.

Realistically, anyone who rolls the backbone of a good naval fleet across the world and out of action for a couple of turns needs their head examined.  Japan has told the Americans what they’re going to do with their game, leaving them a nearly fully functional fleet in the Pacific.  I mean, did you even send anything at SZ 56?  If not, the fleet’s already going to be on par with whatever JP wants to throw at them.  If not, it’s still VERY much a threat.  That fleet, in particular could be REALLY effective gathering in SZ 46 (2 inf if trn 56 is alive, 2bmb, ftr on sol from US, 2 inf from brit) and shipping out from there.  My first turn US answer to that is 3 subs, ftr and a bmb dropped in Pacific theater.  Sure, that fleet inf 46 attack able by many planes in 61 and any ships that are in 50, but there are a few key points to this.  Any aircraft wanting to attack this hearty fleet (BB soak, 2-3 destroyers before you’re doing any good dmg) from SZ 62 will FORCE a carrier to stop in sz 51, in range of the build of US, and the bmb and ftr on land in the solomons.  Sol’s in a bit of danger and loses SOME punch if the US trn isn’t there, but if JP wants to send every unit that can reach a 0 cost territory in turn 2 after sending a ton of their units at a 1 cost territory in turn 1, they’re just not doing acquiring the wealth they NEED to compete with the US.  Along with beginning to chip away at the substantial unit advantage JP has on them int he start,

Of course, playing without NOs allows you to ignore Phi and by extension, US, a bit more.  I do seem to remember this was all predicated on you saying you play without NO… and when Haw is worth 6 to JP turn 1, Phi is worth 7 to the US and is part of another NO for JP, they tend to get ignored less.  Still, no NOs tends to favor the Allies a bit more, and that’d make fighting for big money territories like EI and Borneo all the more appealing for the US/UK.

[Jennifer]

Dunno, 7 infantry is not that strong a defense for the IPC and utility.  At least in my opinion.

I’ve seen 7 infantry go down to 5 infantry and 2 tanks with minimal damage to the attacker.  Now factor in all those fighters buzzing around. (Yes, I would ignore the BB in SZ 53 and the DD/Trn in SZ 56 in this case so I could obliterate the Russians.)

Once the Russians and the Chinese are destroyed, utterly and completely, on Japan 1, I can focus the majority of my income to ships for the pacific if America goes that route (And they probably will with the gift of +28 IPC in naval ships of the line)

Honestly, with 3 carriers, it’s a matter of working Japan up to 12 fighters and then putting battleships and destroyers in the water.  If America just builds and never advances, you can use your fighters against mainland enemies, if they do, you can quickly fly them back to cover your fleet and increase the threat range of your naval power. (6 fighters on a carrier + 6 fighters on land can all attack at once if you need them too.)

[souL]

I’m not doubting their obliteration, but crunching the numbers the IPC’s lost against the BB on average are lower.  If the DD is in the battle, that’s 8 IPCs hit 2/3 of the time in round 1.  The Russian stack averages 2.33 hits on 3 IPC units–5 1/3 IPC for the BB (6.66 for a fighter only attack), 7 IPC for the inf.

Also, why is America building but never advancing?  If I’m left with a completely unmolested fleet outside of sz 50, I’m certainly making my presence felt US1.  Alas, the only way to really prove that is on the board though.

[Lucifer]

I seriously doubt that there are any good ways to kill the Japanese fleet in the -41 scenario, assuming the axis player is somewhat decent.

Japan will only have 10 ipc less in production level than the US by the end of J1. By the end of J2, Japan will be near parity with the US.

And if US starts building in WUS it means much less stuff is going to Europe, then there’s the risk of Germany + Italy can push against Russia and at the same time take most of Africa.

[DarthMaximus]

@Subotai:

Japan will only have 10 ipc less in production level than the US by the end of J1. By the end of J2, Japan will be near parity with the US.

But the US can essentially spend 85-95% on Navy/Air for the Pac while Japan is doing a 50/50 split at best.  Japan still needs to buy some ICs and gorund troops for Asia.  The US can commit 2 inf per turn (only 6 ipc) to Afr/Euro using the trn they start with while they use the remaining 42 ipc on navy.

At the end of US 1 the navy in Sz 56 can consist of 4 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs with 2 boms nearby.  At the end of US 2 you can have: 1 sub, 5 dd, 3 ac, 6 ftrs.  After that you mix in a trn with more subs and dds for fodder and you can probably move on the Sol by US 4-5.

I’m not saying you can kill the J fleet easily, but you can get to her islands.

@Subotai:

And if US starts building in WUS it means much less stuff is going to Europe, then there’s the risk of Germany + Italy can push against Russia and at the same time take most of Africa.

True.  Russia needs to play a solid defensive game, and be able to trade Belo/Euk/Ukr.  But the UK should be able to help from its mid east units since Japan should be somewhat preoccupied by the growing US fleet.

[atarihuana]

why not buy 6 subs US1? they are solomones/ carolines US2, scattered around eastindies US3. japan has got to protect their transports.

lets say sz56 /53 got cleared

US1 6 Subs save 4
US2: AC BB 2 DD save 2
US3: loaded AC 2 DD

leaves u with 3AC 6 ftr 1 BB 5DD in sz56 end US3 and 6 subs already scatterd in the pazific.

japan often buys 2trannies or and IC round1. even if they buy 2 DD J1 and 5 J2 they got 3 AC 6ftr BB CA and 7 DD J2. they will prolly spend another 30-40 IPC J3 and put some subs in the water too…

american bombers at least should sbr italythe first 3 turns. id risk those 4 shots at 1 and then move them back into the pacific.

[Jennifer]

America is building and not advancing because if they advance they have a significant naval threat to contend with that could eliminate them in short order.

Remember, Japan has 9 Fighters in their starting set up!  With 6 Fighters on Carriers and 3 Fighters along the coast, it is theoretically possible to hit the Solomon’s Sea Zone with Cruiser, Battleship, Destroyer and 9 Fighters.

America can get, at most, 2 Destroyers, Carrier, 2 Fighters, Battleship in Solomons by the end of US 1.

That’s a 99% in favor of Japan battle, by the calculator.

Now, if America buys, say, 5 or 6 submarines in SZ 56 and consolidates there, why wouldn’t Japan buy 3 Fighters and some ground units?  (This would give them 12 fighters that can hit your navy; 6 on carriers that land on ground territories and 6 from ground territories that can land on carriers.)

And if America continues, Japan only needs +2 Destroyers to effectively end the Submarine threat from any one or two territories on the board.

With 12 Fighters, 3 Carriers, 3 Destroyers, Cruiser, Battleship (+46 IPC) the Japanese are effectively ensconced in protection for a while and still able to give America enough pause that they keep a wide berth between them.

And once Japan gets 2 or 3 ICs running on the mainland, they don’t need to control SZ 62 any longer and can move their fleet away.

---

Do not get me wrong.  I am not saying America cannot defeat the Japanese in the Pacific.  I have plans that I think work effectively at dismantling the Japanese fleet.  But submarines are not the mainland idea behind it.

I believe America needs to focus on Destroyers, another carrier (to land those fighters on), bombers for long range punch and battleships.  Honestly, in this scenario, Cruisers are not cost effective.  Just my opinion on that.  Cruisers are great for the Atlantic, they give you bombardments and can be added to the British fleet at minimal costs to protect against the Luftwaffe. (Carrier, 2 Fighters, 3 Transports and just enough cruisers to stop Germany from posing a serious threat to the fleet is my aim.)

As for submarines, those are units I add in two rounds before I think I’ll engage the enemy.  Why two rounds?  1 Round to move them into position, one round to make the combat move.  By the time i think of serious submarine commitment, the enemy fleet should already be dead, I’m just adding some units for the coup de gras and insurance.

After you control the Pacific, it’s a good idea to put a serious investment of submarines in the water since you can set up a scenario where you can sink anything the enemy builds and have units immune from enemy attack.

[alwayswin]

I have successfully killed the Japanese fleet multiple times but it takes a full four turns of purchases to get it done - but it is worth it.

In order for this to work the UK must be able to put a threathening fleet together in the Atlantic to be able to help Russia deal with Germany and Italy. Make sure the UK is on the same page.

What I’m about to describe is way easier to do in the 1942 setup and even takes less commitment from America.

I will also assume that the game is being played with NO’s.

Let’s assume the US battleship has been killed and if you want, assume the destroyer and transport in SZ56 are also killed - if not, bonus.

US T1 purchase 1 carrier, 1 transport and 3 subs (if you still have the SZ56 transport then buy another sub).

After the first US turn SZ56 should have 2 carriers, 4 fighters, 3 subs, 1 destroyer and 1 transport OR if you’re lucky, a second destroyer and fourth sub.

US T2 purchase 1 battleship, 4 subs and one tech. roll.

US T2 non-combat everything from SZ56 to Alaska and also land at least two of your bombers in Alaska as well.

US T2 place all purchased units in SZ56.

Now Japan is more then likely capable of attacking your boats in Alaska; however, you have a counter attack of 1 battleship, 4 subs and 2 bombers. Even if Japan brought everything over there to deal with you and built more boats the US counter will destroy what’s left.

In my experience Japan does not attack because they want to establish themselves in Asia. Japan will build more boats - fine.

US T3 purchase isn’t set in stone but it should be something like 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 fighter and 2 subs.

US T3 non-combat everything from SZ56 to Alaska and build everything in SZ56.

Once again Japan could attack but again your counter attack will finish the job.

If Japan doesn’t attack then no matter what they build the US must attack turn 4. Japan will likely put down one or two more hits in naval units so the attack might seem foolish - it is not. It will work. Even if you don’t kill it all, Japan will likely survive only fighters because again the US has set up a counter attack.

Before you doubt me you must try it. It works, not just once either. This has become my US strategy in both setups. Japan is way too powerful when left alone and buying doing this an India IC becomes possible, China will be able to put a few more men down to stall Japan.

The goal of this strategy is not to invade Japan, that’s never going to happen. All you want to do is delay, delay, delay. Without Japan breathing down Russia’s neck both the Soviets and British can handle Germany. Once you’ve crippled the Japs then you can slowly help in the Atlantic, plus you should still have bombers to fly back over to London.

I will repeat, don’t knock it until you try it AND it has to be full out. You can’t be putting some of your IPC’s in the Atlantic, if you take your foot off the gas you will fail. It must also start turn 1, no later.

As for US T4 purchases, another bomber, fighter and more subs. Japan will not be able to keep up, and if they are then that’s all they’re doing and that is exactly the point.

[alwayswin]

Quick correction on my post: 1941 US starts with only two bombers so both of those must go to Alaska, there is no third bomber.

[bongaroo]

If I were Japan I’d be building a fleet to counter the USA fleet purchases.  Would seem silly to watch the US build a fleet that big and not start putting more than just a few boats in the water.

What did Japan buy to match USA in your games?

[bugoo]

Why on earth does everyone want to put the US fleet in SZ 51?  A much better location for the US to rally is SZ 46 and that can be done as early as US 1 with the UK navy.  From there you can take any island in the south pacific, which is where the money is and honestly the most important thing to do for the US.  It is also 3 spaces away from Japan preventing them from hitting you with there builds while still within 2 spaces for the US.  Once you secure that SZ build transports and start taking islands, even if you have to ‘trade’ islands you can afford to do so.  The only thing SZ 46 is good for is 5 UK IPCs.  Yes, the Japs can sink your transports, it doesnt matter if you have the island.  Remember, by the end of J2 most/all Pacific islands are empty.  Later in the game you can push on the main island.

[wodan46]

Hmmm.

A1: Build 1 Carrier, 2 Transports, 1 Bomber, move fleets to Sea Zones 56 and 20
A2: Build 4 Bombers, move Fleet to Sea Zone 46, along with Australians.  Land Bombers in Austr

At end of A2, your forces are as follows:
Solomon Islands: 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 2 Transports, 4 Infantry
Australia: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 3 Bombers, 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Western US: 4 Bombers
Sea Zone 44: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport, 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery (or they can go for Africa if they wish)

At this point, you have a solid force in Solomon Islands, capable of threatening Japanese holdings heavily, and a flight of Bombers that will wreck the Japanese fleet if they attack you at Solomons, as well as punishing unwary transports.

Not to mention, if they built an IC in East Indies J2, you have a pretty good chance of taking it, especially if you landed Bombers in Australia, though in that case, the British Transport might want to stay home so that the full 4 Australian units are there to guard the aircraft.

[Jennifer]

There is another aspect people are forgetting.

Build the US Fleet in the Atlantic, when ready, move it into the Pacific via going under Argentina, going under South Africa or going through the Panama canal.

No one says your fleet has to be built in SZ 56 you know.  Besides, if you build it in SZ 10 you have a couple of brownie points:

1)  You can help liberate and control Africa while you build your fleet.
2)  Japan’s looking at you going KGF, not expecting you to swing back around and attack them in the Pacific, odds are, they won’t be countering your fleet builds but rather will be solely focused on the ground war for SE Asia.

[atarihuana]

is it possible to hit sz53 with 2 ftr, DD  and sz44 with 4 ftr  on J1 and then in NCM move the 2 AC to sz45?

[Unknown Soldier]

@atarihuana:

is it possible to hit sz53 with 2 ftr, DD  and sz44 with 4 ftr  on J1 and then in NCM move the 2 AC to sz45?

Yes, but you would have to use the CV + 2 ftrs from sz61.

[alwayswin]

If you really want to control the islands then you have to control the Tokyo SZ. Sending small fleets with one transport far away from home won’t last. Once you gain control of their main production SZ you can send all the transports you want to take back the islands.

Same goes for the American airforce, those planes are useless in Australia. Using Alaska as an airforce base allows you to help the Russians if need be and it keeps your counter attack in the Tokyo SZ in place. Japan has plenty of IPC’s so I don’t think it’s wise to allow them to put down small fleets that will eventually overpower whatever you have roaming around the islands. It also keeps the Japanese navy away from India, Africa and the Med.

[wodan46]

@alwayswin:

If you really want to control the islands then you have to control the Tokyo SZ. Sending small fleets with one transport far away from home won’t last. Once you gain control of their main production SZ you can send all the transports you want to take back the islands.

Once you control the main production sea zone…  How precisely do you control the Sea Zone around the enemy’s IC, that is two turns away from your IC, when the opponent has a larger starting fleet and better income than you do?

The reason why the Solomon Islands tactic might work is because it is one turn away from the West US IC and two turns away from the Japan IC, and it is one turn away from East Indies/Borneo/Philipines, while those are two turns away from the Japan IC as well.