with Russia invested in China (IC in Szechwan and raised territory value to 3) and getting the IPCs, pluss the turn order allowing to consolidate, made a KJF more viable. My friend tried it one game but made a couple mistakes with positioning
Japan 1st Round Pacific…
-
How many people attack the US Aircraft Carrier group in Rnd 1 in the Pacific (sz 44)?
How successful is this in overall terms of strategy later in the game?
-
Just to update: I tried it experimentally with Triple A and a US retaliation with 1 bmbr, 1 ftr and the dd wiped out japan’s 2 AC’s and 4 ftrs.
Apparently an 0.01% chance or something according to the battle calculator!
-
I’ve never tried it in a game, but I don’t like the idea of leaving that carrier group so close to the mainland US. I’m assuming you attack the US battleship in SZ 53 with 1 fighter and the destroyer from SZ 51, then 3 fighters against the navy in SZ 44, and move the 2 carriers to SZ 54 in non-com. If you’re really lucky you’ll only lose 1 fighter, which means the 2 carriers, and 3 fighters will get attacked by up to 2 fighters, 2 bombers, and 1 destroyer in the US counterattack and get destroyed. As Japan, I’d rather have those carriers ready to defend against a US naval strike later in the game.
I usually try to take out the Hawaiian battleship w/ 2 fighters from the carrier group and the Caroline Islands destroyer, the destroyer and transport in SZ 55 with the other 2 fighters and then the destroyer and transport off the Philippines with the Japanese battleship and either the cruiser or a fighter. That way, the US navy can’t do too much in the Pacific until round 3.
-
Actually - move your carriers down to sea zone 45 and the US can only attack with 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 destroyer. Fighters from the Carolines which attacked the Battleship (along with the destroyer) can land either on your third carrier (which moved to the Carolines through the Phillipines after you won that battle) or top up losses on your orignial Pearl carriers.
Either ways - with a bit of fighter-shuffling you should be able to keep those carriers covered.
-
Hmm…interesting. If you were feeling really brave you could combine this with an amphibious assault on Hawaii using the the two transports in SZ 51 and a fighter from the carrier group in SZ 57. Add in the destroyer from SZ 51 and two fighters from SZ 61 to take on the battleship. Then you would get an NO and destroy the Hawaiian fighter, although your two transports would probably be destroyed next round.
-
Nice move but even if Triple A allows to do it, I am not sure if you really can send your fighters so far out without the carriers being in range to recover.
The thing is that in theory, carriers can’t recover your fighters unless you pass trough the BB.
It works out since you can recover in non-combat but I am not sure if its legal since at fighter launch, you can’t recover them due to ennemy ships in the way.
Either it is legal, or it’s a triple A error to allow the move.
-
@Corbeau:
Nice move but even if Triple A allows to do it, I am not sure if you really can send your fighters so far out without the carriers being in range to recover.
The thing is that in theory, carriers can’t recover your fighters unless you pass trough the BB.
It works out since you can recover in non-combat but I am not sure if its legal since at fighter launch, you can’t recover them due to ennemy ships in the way.
Either it is legal, or it’s a triple A error to allow the move.
If you have even a remote possibility of success it is allowed.
-
Yeegads, a satanic number of posts for critmonster! :evil:
-
@Corbeau:
Nice move but even if Triple A allows to do it, I am not sure if you really can send your fighters so far out without the carriers being in range to recover.
The thing is that in theory, carriers can’t recover your fighters unless you pass trough the BB.
It works out since you can recover in non-combat but I am not sure if its legal since at fighter launch, you can’t recover them due to ennemy ships in the way.
Either it is legal, or it’s a triple A error to allow the move.
I had exactly the same doubts Corbeau, but checked it on the main AA50 forum and it was confirmed that this is indeed legal (and explained in detail on pg 26 of the rulebook). Aside US good luck - it is possible to destroy the BB, AC, DD, and Ftr - and hopefully end up with 2 carriers and 4 Ftrs pretty much out of harm’s way. Capturing Hawaii is a bit of a stretch - but I like it for a first turner anyway as it does give Japan those 5 IPCs straight away. To have a go at Hawaii you would (I think) have to take some pretty extreme risks.
1. 2 Ftrs Formosa SZ, 1 dd, 2 trns, 3 inf (offload inf Hawaii), carolines - Hawaii SZ (vs 1 BB) 90% chance of winning. (tripleA battle calc)
2. 3 inf Caolines, 1 Ftr, SZ 57 - Hawaii (vs 1 inf, 1 ftr). Which is 87% chance of a win
3. 3 Ftrs SZ 57 vs SZ 44 (1 DD, 1 Carrier, 1 Ftr) which is virtually 50/50. However - I’m not sure whether the battle calc takes into consideration that the US must lose their fighter before their carrier as the ftr has no landing spot.
I’ve tried this solitaire on Triple A and got all my targets. However - I found that the extra strain on the Japanese navy left various transports in vulnerable spots without escort and the Phillipines came down to a rather close for comfort 1 arm/1 inf vs 2 inf which the Japanese lost. Japan took Wake though so as to deprive the US immediately of the their Wake/Midway/Solomons/Hawaii NO.
None the less - the following US turn Japan would have lost most of its transports - or a carrier (in the Wake Island SZ, with a Cruiser and transport - no planes).
After trying a second time with more conservative tactics (Not taking hawaii) Japan still was overstretched. She lost 3 ftrs in the attack (30 IPCs) against the carriers for only 32 IPCs damage to US forces and her carriers are rather out of range of the rest of the navy. She also had bad luck losing a ftr and destroyer to the American battleship (which was also destroyed). Even so - she ended up with just 2 ftrs and 2 carriers which fortunately the American response (1 bmbr, 1 dd, 1 ftr) only took 1 plane off. Had the US had more luck the Japanese carriers could have been in trouble.
Overall I think it was a bit exciting to ‘wipe out’ the US carrier force in Rnd 1 - but strategically of less impact than the much easier option of the destroyer/transport on the west coast (which Japan CANNOT do if they go for the carrier - they simply don’t have the forces).
Suggested Topics
