I predict this strat will never be beaten!
i disagree.
this shows the strat will fail 55% of the time. and the 45% of the time j can capture usa, i still do not know if it is a winning strategy, or if uk can win the war.
Nope, I’m pretty sure this strat cannot be beaten.
then the US is spared
The UK has to do something stupid to save the US to beat this strategy
Kwanngtung would have 2 infantry, a tac, and 5 fighters. Japan can punch through this but it takes them a turn out of position for west coast crush. Then the US makes mad money and the UK has to sit on its hands till india falls
if the uk does something stupid to save the usa, like loading kwangtung with all its airforce and building an complex, then japan gets to easily smash all uk air units, steal the new complex on japans 2nd turn. they abandon the attempt to capture usa and win the game easily.
again this does not show that a capture usa strategy can work, just that this uk counter strategy is not the best play. i really want to find out if the strategy is possible, and if so, is it a winning strategy.
AWNIL has 4 inf, 8 inf, then 10 tanks. An extra inf, or an inf changed to a tank, could make a difference given the % is 45. It may be reduced to below 40%.
[EDIT: 1 extra inf drops the % from 44 to 37% Two extra inf down to 28%]
hi squirecam, thanks for the input.
you are correct that an extra inf, or and inf upgraded to a tank would reduce the odds below 40%. but i beleive i have shown the maximum defensive purchases for the usa.
can you show us a usa purchase that would be better? or if i have made a mistake in the usa purchases where the mistake is?
right now with maximum japanese assault purchases and movements, countered by maximum usa/anzac deffensive purchases and movements, JAPAN CAPTURES USA 45% OF THE GAMES.
I just think these kind of games are really lame. Just like the old capture UK first turn with Germany. It defeats the purpose of playing the game. If the gamble fails, welll I suppose Japan just lose? If the gamble wins, then the game is over?
Yup, especially in light of it having a 1 in 3 chance of actually working.
I just think these kind of games are really lame. Just like the old capture UK first turn with Germany. It defeats the purpose of playing the game. If the gamble fails, welll I suppose Japan just lose? If the gamble wins, then the game is over?
Good for you. I’m glad your not the one making the game, b/c this is the best a and a game yet. There are so many flaws in your reasoning, but let me just point out some main and obvious ones. If Japan is able to capture the U.S… if, then the allies actually still have a good chance at winning. Next, no one is going to go all out on a 45% chance of success. The only way any player would go for the U.S. is if they thought that they could get away with the best buys for Japan, while somehow fooling the U.S. player. An surprise attack. So that’s kind of what this game is all about, and it’s the best game b/c you have a choice, with a chance of victory with every choice, whether it’s a go at U.K., china, ANZAC, Hawaii, or the Western U.S. No one said that you had to do the gamble, and it’s not a gamble for the game. It’s a gamble for the West U.S., which is very different. If you would surrender, then maybe your just no good and didn’t play the game right as the other allies. Don’t blame the game first before considering whether or not you yourself are in the wrong.
Well this strategy doesnt work if the UK can capture japan. the allies win if they control tokyo, no matter what.
assuming you are COMPLETELY ignoring the coast. You will lose siam and french indochina to UK before the J3 collect income phase, along with some chinese territoreies. So that will lower Japan below 30 IPCs for J3 collect income phase. Meaning their J4 purchase will be 9 inf or less. Can UK get through. I dont feel like doing the math at this moment because……
US can blocade alaska on US1
By moving combat ships into SZ 7, SZ 15.
Japan cant take alaska on J2. Japan cant take Alaska J2. You have been defeated
You cant move through ships when they are neutral to make a combat move, otherwise the ships become hostile.
The best you can do is move the loaded transports off the coast of alaska. But then you are dealing with a US that collects 55 + 7 on its turn, and you cant land air at alaska because you didnt control it.
US sacrifices 1 destroyer and 1 crusier and this West Coast Crush is no more.
AWNIL has 4 inf, 8 inf, then 10 tanks. An extra inf, or an inf changed to a tank, could make a difference given the % is 45. It may be reduced to below 40%.
[EDIT: 1 extra inf drops the % from 44 to 37% Two extra inf down to 28%]
hi squirecam, thanks for the input.
you are correct that an extra inf, or and inf upgraded to a tank would reduce the odds below 40%. but i beleive i have shown the maximum defensive purchases for the usa.
can you show us a usa purchase that would be better? or if i have made a mistake in the usa purchases where the mistake is?
right now with maximum japanese assault purchases and movements, countered by maximum usa/anzac deffensive purchases and movements, JAPAN CAPTURES USA 45% OF THE GAMES.
Correct me if I’m wrong here….
1. You posted USA as buying 4 inf Round 1. They can actually get 5. So your total was off by 1 USA inf.
2. UK can sail 2 inf from Malaya to Queensland UK1, then follow up to land in USA on round 3. That brings two additional inf.
But the 1 USA inf alone makes it bit better than a 1/3 chance.
AWNIL has 4 inf, 8 inf, then 10 tanks. An extra inf, or an inf changed to a tank, could make a difference given the % is 45. It may be reduced to below 40%.
[EDIT: 1 extra inf drops the % from 44 to 37% Two extra inf down to 28%]
can you show us a usa purchase that would be better? or if i have made a mistake in the usa purchases where the mistake is?
Correct me if I’m wrong here….
1. You posted USA as buying 4 inf Round 1. They can actually get 5. So your total was off by 1 USA inf.
2. UK can sail 2 inf from Malaya to Queensland UK1, then follow up to land in USA on round 3. That brings two additional inf.
But the 1 USA inf alone makes it bit better than a 1/3 chance.
thanks for catching the usa1 purchase error.(i am ebarrassed for making such an obvious error) that does change the odds to 1/3
your second point is also correct, but i discount it because japan has not attacked on j1 or even made movements towards usa. i do not think an allied player would move uk units to queensland as j2 could be an attack on the uk.
i have modified the original post to include your correct usa1 purchase
Well this strategy doesnt work if the UK can capture japan. the allies win if they control tokyo, no matter what.
assuming you are COMPLETELY ignoring the coast. You will lose siam and french indochina to UK before the J3 collect income phase, along with some chinese territoreies. So that will lower Japan below 30 IPCs for J3 collect income phase. Meaning their J4 purchase will be 9 inf or less. Can UK get through. I dont feel like doing the math at this moment because……
japan will not be captured by uk. if we use your example japan has j3 and j4 purchase to fend of the 2 loaded uk transports.
more importantly the uk fleet will sunk by j air and/or js sz19 fleet
US can blocade alaska on US1
By moving combat ships into SZ 7, SZ 15.
Japan cant take alaska on J2…. You have been defeated…
US sacrifices 1 destroyer and 1 crusier and this West Coast Crush is no more.
yes usa can blockade on usa1
this does stop the j4 attempt to capture west usa. however, it does not defeat the japanese.
now japan on j2 attacks the uk, hawaii, moves to caroline islands to threaten anzac, or any other move.
you have shown how to effectivly stop the attempt to capture west usa. i still want to find out if an attempt is made if it is possible. and if it is possible if it is a winning strategy.
j1 purchase 3 transports, move sz33 units to sz6, capture french indo china and 4 available chinese territories.
j2 purchase 5 transports, declare war, capture alaska with 1tank, 3art, 8inf via sz1 with 6 loaded transports, land all air in japan
j3 move 10inf from japan to alaska, move all air units to alaska(except 6 figs on carriers in sz1)
j4 attack west usa with 18inf, 3art, 1tank, 14figs, 10tacs, 4bombersusa1 purchase 5inf, move phil air to guam, move all ground and air units to west usa
usa2 purchase 8inf, move guam air to wake
usa3 purchase 10tanks, move wake air to west usaanzac1 move tran to queensland
anzac2 move 4 figs to hawaii, move tran to sz27
anzac3 move 4 figs to west usa and unload 2inf to west usawest usa battle is
japan attacking with 18inf, 3art, 1tank, 14figs, 10tacs, 4bombers
allies defending with 22inf/art, 11tanks, 8figs, 3tacs, 3bombersjapan wins 35% of the time
with optimal purchases and moves on both sides(only considering a kill usa first strategy) japan has 35% chance at capturing usa. looks like the game designers did a great job at making kill usa a viable strategy that is not over powering
yes it’s all right but you are forgetting the antiaircraft rolls lol with that concentration of aircraft surely some aircraft will fall down :) and your 35% chance of win will drasticaly go down!
@Panz3r:
yes it’s all right but you are forgetting the antiaircraft rolls lol with that concentration of aircraft surely some aircraft will fall down :) and your 35% chance of win will drasticaly go down!
i did not forget the anti aircraft gun. if the usa happened to move the aagun out japan wins 85% of the time.
Why go for the US in this Pacific only game? If I am playing the US and saw this massive attack beginning to come together over several turns. I am turtling Russia style with tons of ground force and a plane here or there. Not to mention I would be going balls out after Asia to stomp Japan out for good because lets face it, if the Japan player is forced to make a counter attack against the UK or ANZAC or China before this US invasion happens, then it will fail. Because those are valuable resources that are getting delayed. I really don’t think its even worth the risk of invading the US unless you have above lets say a 70% chance of winning. You would be really spreading yourself thin and I guarantee you wouldn’t have a huge defense force of Tokyo waiting for a counterattack cause you would be going all out for west coast USA. I think you should just focus on taking VCs that are more easily obtainable that can be held with tons of units that survived the initial landing. Its a brilliant thought to come up with a strategy like this, I just don’t think its worth it, way too many risks for the reward of knocking out 1 Allied player.
US1, 3 infantry & 1 arty move to BC. US buys 1 mech. infantry, 1 arty & 3 infantry.
US2, US counter attacks Alaska with 6 inf (+ off shore bombardment from SZ1), 2 arty, 2 mech, 1 armor, 3 bombers, 1 CV fighter & 1 CV dive bomber.
Of course, it’s a heck of a lot easier to just block SZ8 & 25. :-)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17497.0
It’s a bad idea to try KUSAF. Even if it’s successful, Japan loses a tremendous amount of material and is out of position, and the other 3 allies still have a good shot to win.
I have playtested this (see above link) once to make these conclusions, on a similar thread.
Garen made a good point that he wouldn’t try this unless he had 70% or better odds. I wouldn’t try it unless I had 85% or better odds, because if it fails, you’re thrashed. And Japan has a much better chance of winning this game the “normal” way - beating down China, UK, and then ANZAC. When so many players are struggling to figure out how to win with the Allies, why in the world would you use some hair-brained strategy like this? And as some have said, it’s not like the USA can’t see it coming.
In my test game, I didn’t even fly all 4 ANZAC fighters to WUS, and I still won against the assualt with several aircraft to spare. The remaining surviving Jap navy was dead in the water, and Japan had absolutely no chance.
See the link in the above link to see my game. I don’t think you can improve on Tragedy’s J moves much. He pretty much brought everything as fast as he could.
…And Japan has a much better chance of winning this game the “normal” way - beating down China, UK, and then ANZAC. When so many players are struggling to figure out how to win with the Allies, why in the world would you use some hair-brained strategy like this?
becuase it can add variety to your game.
but you are right, this attack only works 35% of the time and even if it does work you are not guaranteed victory, unlike a j1 with kill china and uk first which is a guaranteed win
It cant work, if japan is going this route it has to move everything to its home SZ
If the US sees that all they have to do is blocade SZ 7 & 15
I dont see how there is still an argument. It is an imposiblity
