Naval Base in Alaska wins the game

[Col Hajj]

I’ve taken Hawaii and destroyed the US fleet and held Hawaii for 4-5 turns.  However, that was after I spent the first 4 turns removing China from the game and hitting the UK hard.

Next time you guys play the US (or play a “test” game with your self), if Japan does not attack you on turn one, move your SF fleet up to Alaska and build a naval base.  Over the next couple of turns drop a fighter on Hawaii and the rest towards building up an invation force in Alaska.

Unless the Japanese player has seen this before, most likely he will think you are going to invade Japan.  Once you are in the war and your invation force and protecting fleet are ready, drive it into SZ5 and dump 5 or so tanks with their 5 supporting infintry (full transports) into Korea.

Once that China money starts falling, Japan will be right behind it.

[Hobbes]

Unless J sinks the entire US transports fleet off SZ5, uses 1 inf in Manchuria to block the path of those 5 inf and 5 arm and on its next turn proceeds to blow up the US Army in Korea or Manchuria with its airforce and land units brought in from J…

Most likely in the Global game R is forbidden to attack J (or Allies to move units there) unless J attacks R

[marechallannes]

Harbour in Alaska wins game?

The japanese home-fleet-carrier goup will always go for the US-Fleet.

If it’s not possible to hit US-fleet at Pearl Habour, it will be hit at the coast of Alaska. A habour without ships does not work.

The alaska-habour strategy could work if the Japs concentrate on Australia.

[Gargantua]

This manuever is easily blocked by retaining 4 jap inf in Manchuria.

Everyone at some point will have a swarm of fighters sitting in Japan.  Even if you did land say 4-8 American ground units, they would be slaughtered in the counter attack.

The Alaska Naval Base, is a good US investment, but Japan can see the attack coming a turn, or turns before it actually occurs.  3 or 4 inf maintained in Manchuria is NOT going to stop the Japanese offensive on the rest of the board.

This is a sneaky move to use on newer, or inexperienced players, but you’re not going to handsdown beat anyone who has a few games under thier belt, with one simple move.

There is NO Silver Bullet in Axis and Allies, STOP looking for it please. :P

[Col Hajj]

I’m sure you have played a lot more AA games then me, but I don’t see how 4 Inf left in Manchuria is going to stop 5 tanks and 5 Inf invading Korea.  Even if you lost all 5 of the US Inf in the 1-2 rounds those 4 Japanese Inf would last, the 5 tanks are going to take a pretty heavy toll on any fighters Japan sends over to deal with them.  I’m sure that is a money exchange the US player would love to get into.

The only sure way I can think to stop this is for Japan to commit a large portion of it’s fleet to sitting up there blocking it… which it could never come and not be a big waste to the US.

Oh, and I’m not looking for a Silver Bullet… I’m looking for a way around one ;)

[Col Hajj]

From reading most of your responses, I’d like to know what happens to your Japanese fleet when you attack the US one at the start of the game (or even mid game)?  I’ve always won with mine, but what I have left is pathtic at best and normally wiped out the next turn by US bombers.

[Uncle_Joe]

I admit that I havent studied this issue extremely closely (or seen it in use) but my sense of it is that as the Japanese player, I’m not all that worried about it. I mean you are going to have to fight the US forces SOMEWHERE. And if the US has 5 TRs + 5 tanks + 5 inf and enough navy to not make this be a one-time suicide force up North then that mean that the US has nothing harassing me in the SoPac/DEI areas. And honestly I’d rather take them on in my own front yard than all the way down away from my production and massed airpower.

Yes, the image of US tanks blitzing through China and liberating Chinese lands to spring up troops is somewhat disturbing, but I still think I would prefer that to having the US continually taking away my bonuses down south and occupying high-value islands. Also, having the US up north is keeping them out of support range from the Aussies and any surviving UK air/navy. That will deprive them of mutual support and threat potential.

And as was said above, it’s not like this is a surprise maneuver. The US has to built the Naval Base (giving 1 turn of warning) and then the TRs with all the associated troops etc have to be on hand to be there as well. If the US is massing that kind of invasion power in San Fran, believe me, I’m going to take counter-measures along the home front. :) The US may cause a bit of a mess up north, but I dont see it as being any ‘insta-win’ or anything close to it at this point.

All that said, I’ll give it a closer look in my next game as the US (and again as Japan) and see if this is something I think would be a worthy diversion of forces from what I consider the primary battle area of the DEI.

[Make_It_Round]

Since the naval base from Hawaii has the same reach as Alaska would, it’s completely useless to build a naval base there. Just protect Hawaii, and it’ll be the same number of turns to get to Tokyo. Plus you don’t have to spend an extra 15 IPCs to invest in a useless base in an area of low strategic value / importance.

That being said, in my second game I played the Allies: bought all naval units for the US, and fronted them to Pearl. Soon Japan attacked and sunk the fleet straight off, with little difficulty. This turnabout left me with 22 IPCs to spend on infantry build to defend the mainland against his 3 transports worth of men and air support from the carriers. I thought that the US itself was untouchable due to distance and superior economy, but San Francisco fell (with NO possibility of recovery; obviously Japan won that game)… so sometimes the smart Japan player SHOULD go for the Americans’ throat. Correspondingly, the US player should never be complacent, and waste their IPCs on pointless facilities.

[marechallannes]

@Col:

From reading most of your responses, I’d like to know what happens to your Japanese fleet when you attack the US one at the start of the game (or even mid game)?  I’ve always won with mine, but what I have left is pathtic at best and normally wiped out the next turn by US bombers.

Jap attack turn 2 example :

The Pearl Habour Operation against a concentrated US-Fleet starts from the CVs at SZ 31 with  6 FTs/TacBombers, supported by 6 FTs/TacBombers from Caroline Islands and 1 or 2 Bombers, 1 BB and 1 - 2 DDs.

You take the Aircrafts from SZ 31 as casualties (or land them later on Marshall Islands if enough of them survive) and place the Caroline Island Aircrafts on the carriers.

At the end the battle, US has no ships left over. All scrambled Aircrafts from Hawaii are shot down.

Ther is a dammaged Jap BB and three full Jap CVs in SZ 26.

How many US-Bombers left? Max.!3! plus the production from 22 IPCs of turn US-Turn 1 at the west coast.

This will be a funny Doolittle Run. :-D

[Vareel]

I think this may work against a J1 that focuses heavily in the DEI area, but if they come at the US with any significant force you will be hard pressed to pull it off.

The real kicker though would be if the US could hold Korea for 2 turns, long enough to put a major factory on it and pump out a crapton of ground units.

[spectre_04]

The only real advantage in using Alaska would be to allow you to build a small factory there (which you cannot do in Hawaii).  you would then need a naval base there to reach Japan in one turn.  I did this as U.S. during the first few turns while JN was mopping up china.  My plan was to build 3 transports or destroyers a turn in Alaska (you get to pick from 2 different sea zones to deploy in, which is nice)  and shuttle mech infantry and tanks from Western USA to invade Japan with.  The strategy was sound, but as was mentioned early in this thread, its a dead giveaway and not a surprise to the Japanese player at all.  He can easily put pressure on the U.S. by having a large invading fleet near the home islands up north and you might end up loosing and having to reconquer the factory and port you spent so much money on.  I think that it would help to have an airfield on the Aleutians so you could lodge your fleet there for some Scramble defense help from airpower, but you can do the same thing in Hawaii.  It does require Japan to divert forces from the south (Sydney) and block another sea zone to keep the homeland for being invaded.  Next time I do this strategy I will want to wait until the U.S. has the wartime economy and can plop everything down at once without having to worry about only having enough fleet to cover Hawaii/Western US or Alaska but not both.

[Col Hajj]

@Make_It_Round:

Since the naval base from Hawaii has the same reach as Alaska would, it’s completely useless to build a naval base there.

The difference here is that coming from Alaska, you do NOT have to enter SZ 6, you can go though SZ 5.  This means that either Japan has to split its defending fleet to cover both SZ 5 & 6 or leave the door to Japan or the mainland open.

With the US wartime economy, minus the PI islands, the US could drop the naval base, 5 tanks, 5 Inf and 5 transports with just two turns of income.  It would then take one turn to move every thing up to Alaska after placing it on the board.  So, this move would give Japan a two turn notice to react to it.  Of course this timing could change depending on what Japan does to the US in the opening rounds, but I think it is still a VERY viable strategy for the US even if Japan wipes out the US fleet in turns 1-4.  If that happens on turn 4, the US can have a fleet and all of the above ready around turn 7… fast enough that Japan will still be fighting hard against China/UK (assuming the UK/Assuies did not attack Japan to bring them in the war solo).

[Gargantua]

Ok, so it takes 4 US turns to setup, and requires 2 full turns Income and starting income for US. without adding a single combat naval combat vessel on the board, or threatening anything BUT Japan.

All to take Korea, which, ok if 4 inf is too little, keep 6,in MAN to counter.

Or, even better, since the US has not added a single combat ship, reserve a few of your own ships to JUST defend the Japan Sz.

As long as the US is committed to this, inf in Man, or a small navy supported by air, with a transport or 2.  inf,lOBLITERATE the landed tanks and inf, Expose the US fleet which is 2 turns away from even getting Back to Alaska, and detrimentally slow down the Allies.

Genious.

[Col Hajj]

What would be genius is if people actually read what others typed.  This move only takes 2 turns of US wartime economy income and 2 turns to setup.

1.Turn X the US enters the war.
2.Turn X+2 the US spends 95 ICUs (or breaks it up into two purchases over two turns to disguise what it is doing some what) on 5 Transports, 5 Tanks, 5 Inf and a naval base.
3. Turn X+3 the US moves the invasion fleet to Alaska
4. Turn X+4 the US hits Korea.

That leaves all the income from every turn before X as well as the income from turns X+3 and X+4 to do whatever you want with.

[gtg21]

So the US takes Korea.  Then what?  I guess my question is what’s the end objective here?  A landing in Japan? Or a diversion?

The move is clearly telegraphed with the placement of the navy base in Alaska.  Plenty of time for the Japanese player to redeploy significant air (and also presumably) naval forces to within striking range to eradicate the landing forces and/or fleet.

And maybe Im missing the point, but why the need for the naval base?  You can get from SF to Alaska in one move, and then Alaska to SZ 5 in one move without the base.  The fleet movement telegraphs the move less than the naval purchase assuming the end point is SZ 5 and not SZ 6.

Is the base simply for reaching SZ 6?  Or is this move centered on a Korean landing? If the latter, then you don’t need the naval base.

Sounds interesting in theory, but I wonder what the practical effects would be in the South Pacific and Hawaii.  Seems like you’d be leaving Hawaii fairly vulnerable, and ANZAC on their own - not exactly the best scenario.

I admit, I only have a few AAP40 games under my belt at this point, but this seems a little too “novel” to actually work.

Though I could see the merit in an AK naval base intended solely for harassment purposes.

[Vareel]

I think you would be much better served by just building up US fleet and if a Korea drop looks like it would work well just move said fleet to SZ 3.  It is still 3 away from Japan so land based fighters/tacs cannot hit your fleet, but only 2 spaces from SZ 5 and landing in Korea.  The only way a landing would be a good idea is if you could get a major factory purchased and producing units in Man.  This could easily be done with an additional pair of carriers for your starting planes and an additional 2 transports, with a sprinkling of DDs for extra support.  This would only require 1 turn of wartime purchase.  For Japan to counter this, though, would simply require 2 Inf in Manchuria along with land based planes in Japan to retake Korea before you can do anything with it.

[A Former User]

We started our first game last saturday night but was not able to play this weekend. I am Japan and during my turn I took some Chinese territories, attacked and took the Philippines, and moved a fleet and some land units to Alaska. My oldest son is the US. On his turn he took out all of my Japanese fleet at Alaska and all but 2 of my land units in Alaska. He also moved all of his aircraft to Midway from Hawaii. The dice were not very friendly to me that night. My 2 remaining land units will be gone on the next US turn since I will not be able to move any other land units up there since my transports are gone. I could keep him busy in Alaska while I take some of my fleet from the Philippines and go after Hawaii. He will (I hope) focus on Alaska and move all of his fleet to Alaska since he won’t be expecting the Hawaii attack.

Has anyone tried this and did it work?

[RJL518]

i still have to give this a try…my friends tried a new japanese idea of going for the USA all at once last night…needless to say…the game didnt last very long…

[Col Hajj]

You can not make it from Alaska to SZ 5 in one turn with out the naval base… unless your map is different then mine.  Sure, you could just take two turns to get there, but that leaves your invasion force vulnerable to both air and fleet attacks by Japan when they are stuck sitting for a turn in SZ4.  It also means there is less pressure on Japan since they have an extra turn to deal with it.

The objective is not to take and hold Korea.  In order for Japan to win the game, they really have to increase their income and put lots of pressure on the UK/China while controlling the DEI.  In the early stages of the game, Japan has plenty of ships and aircraft to deal out a lot of damage.  What they lack is the ground forces to take and hold a lot of territory and the income to rebuild the lost aircraft and ships while pumping ground units out from a factory in the mainland.

If you happen to get a foot hold in China, just drive your tanks around taking money away from Japan.  Sure they can come take it back, but that requires them to divert land units from the advance on India and takes up some of the, now hard to come by income.

By setting up this move with the US, you limit Japan’s ability to heavily control the DEI since a large portion of their fleet and/or aircraft are sitting up north defending against the invasion of either Korea or Japan (they have to think about both since you can hit both in one turn once your fleet is parked in AK).

After the US wartime economy kicks in Japan can not trade ships and aircraft with the US and come out on top.  The biggest problem I’ve seen with the US is getting that economy turned into combat effectiveness in the south pacific.  Set this move up in the early stages of the game so Japan has to keep a watchful eye and counter measures tied up there.  Then setup a decent fleet to head south which really puts Japan in big trouble.

All I’m saying is try this and see how much it cripples Japans ability to advance quickly.

[Vareel]

And i’m telling you that you shall loose all your transports used and navy defending them, and your invasion force will be crushed at a loss of some of japan’s airpower and the handful of ground units hanging out in Manchuria.  If your not planning on putting a factory at Korea there is no real value in taking it.  Your drop will not take place until turn what, 4 or 5?  By then the manpower problems in asia should have solved themselves for japan with the factories on the mainland they build and with China being down to 1-3 inf a turn.  The only viable gain for the US to go hard at Korea would be the intention of getting a factory there, then you could get enough ground units to be a thorn in japan’s side in mainland asia.