Is substalling a prerequisite to winning in a VP campaign for Japan? Second unrelated question. Is AAclassic the only game where subs may withdraw following a round of combat? I dont have Revised and the rules in Europe are ambiguous regarding this topic.
Is substalling a prerequisite to winning in a VP campaign for Japan?
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Second unrelated question. Is AAclassic the only game where subs may withdraw following a round of combat? I dont have Revised and the rules in Europe are ambiguous regarding this topic.
I assume you’re talking about defending subs, as attacking subs can nearly always retreat. Yes, Classic is the only game in which defending subs can withdraw. In the subsequent games, submerging replaced withdrawal as their method of escape.
That answered my question. Sometimes in classic I would withdraw attacking subs while pressing the attack with the rest of the fleet to block a possible counter.
For substalling I was wondering if you can acquire enough VP (assuming the opponent is competent) without employing that tactic.
That answered my question. Sometimes in classic I would withdraw attacking subs while pressing the attack with the rest of the fleet to block a possible counter.
No, you can’t do that in the later games. All attacking units must retreat together. Attacking subs may submerge while the other attacking units continue to fight, but they remain in the contested sea zone.
For substalling I was wondering if you can acquire enough VP (assuming the opponent is competent) without employing that tactic.
Generally not. Substalling is pretty much necessary for a balanced game. However, if you’re interested, I have some simple house rules that balance the game without substalling. They can be found in my first post in this thread.
I will disagree with Kreig here and say that I think substalling maybe the only way the ALLIES can win before Japan cashes out on VPs.
The Allies benefit from substalling in the early game, then Japan benefits from it in the mid to late game.
It is probably the limited number of Pacific games I have played so far but I have found no need for Japan to substall late in the game. And while Saburo Sakai has written some excellent essays on Pacific I use a slightly different approach with Japan and I am kinda a bit stummped as far as how the Allies can respond.
I will say that for all its flaws and imbalances I really like Pacific. While AA50 is probably the top of the heap, the Naval Bases and Air Bases really open the door to different strategies. I would hope that if there is another theater sized game released these would be included. I can see where they would not fit in the campaign sized games or the global games. And be sure and pass that bit along to Mr. Harris.
A44bigdog,
I’d like to hear a vague description of how you would win using VP strategy with Japan. I was under the impression that to win as Japan you had to take India as quickly as possible. Are you using OOTB rules? In the few games I have played, it was no great feat to get enough bombers in place to make the Japan VP win out of the question.
Japan does a 4 VP opening which may or may not result in 4 VPs rd 1. On round 2 grab Northern Australia and Queensland. Using the Naval bases shuttle transports and fresh troops from Japan to French Indo-China to Northern Australia /Queensland. While this is going on try to take out as many UK convoy zones as possible and SBR India every turn. By the time the Allies have enough of a presence to start pushing Japan out of Australia Japan is ready to start slowly retreating. If possible redeploy the troops from Queensland to FIC. This ntes Japan 4 VPs a turn for around 4 turns or so and forces the Allies to Australia to respond to the heavy Japanese presence. It is similar to an invasion of Australia but without the actual capture of a planned invasion.
dinosaur, curious to hear where you place your bombers to SBR Japan into dust. I have plaved several games now and unless US has ample fighter escort casulties are between 1-3 bombers/turn between AA and fighters. If japan senses your intentions it only needs 4 fighters or so to defend.
I will say that for all its flaws and imbalances I really like Pacific. While AA50 is probably the top of the heap, the Naval Bases and Air Bases really open the door to different strategies. I would hope that if there is another theater sized game released these would be included. I can see where they would not fit in the campaign sized games or the global games. And be sure and pass that bit along to Mr. Harris.
Consider it done.
Japan does a 4 VP opening which may or may not result in 4 VPs rd 1. On round 2 grab Northern Australia and Queensland. Using the Naval bases shuttle transports and fresh troops from Japan to French Indo-China to Northern Australia /Queensland. While this is going on try to take out as many UK convoy zones as possible and SBR India every turn. By the time the Allies have enough of a presence to start pushing Japan out of Australia Japan is ready to start slowly retreating. If possible redeploy the troops from Queensland to FIC. This ntes Japan 4 VPs a turn for around 4 turns or so and forces the Allies to Australia to respond to the heavy Japanese presence. It is similar to an invasion of Australia but without the actual capture of a planned invasion.
I’ve never seen this strategy before. It seems to me that a counter might involve sending some air units to Australia to beef it up, then sending a sizeable spread-out submarine force northward to cut Japanese supply lines (both convoy and transport). That would force Japan to withdraw at least part of its fleet away from Australia and take some pressure off.
Japan does a 4 VP opening which may or may not result in 4 VPs rd 1. On round 2 grab Northern Australia and Queensland. Using the Naval bases shuttle transports and fresh troops from Japan to French Indo-China to Northern Australia /Queensland. While this is going on try to take out as many UK convoy zones as possible and SBR India every turn. By the time the Allies have enough of a presence to start pushing Japan out of Australia Japan is ready to start slowly retreating. If possible redeploy the troops from Queensland to FIC. This ntes Japan 4 VPs a turn for around 4 turns or so and forces the Allies to Australia to respond to the heavy Japanese presence. It is similar to an invasion of Australia but without the actual capture of a planned invasion.
While all of your units are in Australia, what is preventing the Allied units in Asia from rolling up FIC, Siam, Malaya, Hongkong and the other IPC territories?
Moving units back to FIC will almost certainly be impossible, because by Round 3 or 4, the Allies will be in a position to substall any transports located in sz32. Meanwhile, UK has almost certainly retaken Sumatra and the Americans will, as Kreighund has stated push submarines forward to cut convoy routes. While a VP target of 22 might be attainable for Japan, I don’t think that 24 or 25 would work with this strategy.
In my experience, a large commitment of troops to Australia means that Japan must win by capturing and holding New South Wales or it will not win at all.
SS
The units moved form Japan to FIC keep the Allies from taking FIC. Actually the only Ally to be concerned with is India and especially with SBRs going on they do not have enough money to be a threat.
Round 3 or 4 when the Allies are even in a position to substall is the time to pull back to FIC. Pulling the forces in Australia back to FIC is not even really necessary. It is not the end of the world for Japan if they have to be left in Australia for the Allies to have to deal with.
Sumatra liberation is no big deal. IF it is liberated it is easy enough to recapture.
The point of this strategy is to limit the Allies options. They CAN NOT ignore the Japanese force in Australia. If they do Australia is lost. When they are forced to focus on Australia this places the Allied emphasis as far away from Japan as possible and limits their liberation of territories here and there that whittle down Japan’s IPCs and VPs.
I have not played against a 4 VP opening. How often is a true 4 VP opening achieved?
It is true that the rough description indicates a US relief of Australia is necessary, but the US can bring plenty of relief to Australia in three turns. It would be a small matter to get six US ground units, and six US fighters into Australia in three turns. That combined with the use of the Aussie forces should end the Japanese momentum threatening New South Wales.
After that, a set of bombers and fighters may be purchased to be sent to Wake along with a large US surface fleet including three or more CVs to the sea zone between Japan and Wake. Using some sub stalling of their own, the US could keep any large attack away from this part of the map for two turns while the US sends bombers from Wake and fighters from the CVs as escorts to SBR Japan.
This is strictly theoretical since I have not faced this opening strategy. It just seems to me the IJN does not have enough income to conduct a major assault and defend the homeland from SBRs.
Some folks may think that the carriers will be sunk by Kamakazies. I think that it could happen, but it is far from a sure thing. The IJN only gets a few of these and if that doesn’t work, they are done.
A 4 VP opening is achieved most of the time. Sometimes a battle will fail resulting in only 3 VPs. However Japan is positioned to get 4 VPs on rd 2 if rd 1 failed to do so. Turns 2 and 3 Japan should be looking at mid 40s IPC collection. ALL of the UK convoys may be captured during this same time period and remember that India is being SBRed.
As far as US bombers to Wake, they can hit the sea of Japan but do not have the range to SBR Japan itself.
