Curious about ideas on mounting an attack in the Pacific.
Obviously the UK navy would suffer without USA’s full support as well as Africa.
Seems obvious Japan will become very strong if bassically left alone on a KGF strat.
I realize by USA’s round 1 turn lots may or may not have happened and depending on that, you would then decide on a KGF or KJF strat.
What is a good first round purchase for USA ?
What is a good rd 1 purchase for USA, with a Pacific attack in mind ?
Thanks in advance for your ideas !
I’m not sure if a Pacific strat with US alone is viable. If Japan captures China, Sinkiang, India, Buryatia, and Soviet Far East, they make 39, the US 38. They already start with a larger navy, and the US carrier can be wiped out on the 1st turn.
You should almost always count on the Americans losing at pearl harbour. I used to be against this strategy in the original 2nd edition version as I felt the benefits did not outweigh the slower start in Asia despite the fact much of what the Japanese used in the strike could not be used elsewhere in the first round. However, in 42 I feel its important to hit first as the Japs. It does somewhat slow you down in Asia granted but its only giving the enemy some IPCs that are useful at some point in the future and may take several rounds for those IPCs to actually produce results on the ground.
Even when confronted by an all out allied blitz in the Pacific I feel it is still in Japans best interest to strike Pearl. For the most part the other targets are not a threat and can be taken care of in future rounds. I might be against the purchase of BBs and CCs but boy do I sure love to use those Japanese BBs in small naval skirmishes in the first few rounds! Japan should not feel the need to try and hit everything all at once thus splitting up her fleet up to be attacked in small pieces. Preservation of existing assests should be foremost in Japans mind.
When the Japanese go into Pearl with force the americans cannot counter attack. I like to use a third Jap fighter in the attack or the bomber, worst case scenario if the US gets 3 hits you take 1 to the BB, 1 to the sub and take 1 of the 3 air units off to keep a fully loaded CV, 1 CC and the BB. Without the US SS present a counter atack by the US is unlikely.
To challenge the Japanese fleet you need the infantry of the large fleet battle, the sub. You need at least 1 DD, trust me, you need 2 or 3. You need to be able to send 1 DD out to strike a seazone that contains more than 1 enemy SS at all times and you always need 1 DD for the fleet. You will need more than 1 CV. 1 just is not enough defense for a stack of subs against what the Japs start off with.
Bombers are great for the US but not in numbers too early. Too many bombers early means your fleet is weak on defense early. The bombers should be the last thing to build right before you plan to cause the jap fleet to retreat or fight and be destroyed. I also would not go too heavy into transports and landforces early, this slows down the build up of capital ships and thus might cost a turn or two until you achieve sufficient power to impose your will on the Jap fleet.
How should Japan defend against this? Japan attacks early and close to the US home. While there is temptation to strike again close to the US home after Pearl Harbor Japan is mindfull that the US supplies lines are short and Japans are long. The Japanese should slowly pull back so their supply lines are short and the americans are long. It buys time to clean up the chaos in the Pacific and the asian coast and lets the Japanese use their exising assests over and over again while the american firepower cannot really be used that effectively early on. But the Japanese also need land forces whereas the US does not.
By US turn 4 the US fleet should be strong enough to cause the Japs to really pull back. Modest transport and land forces combined with 4 fleet fighters and a wave of new bomber purchases should allow early island hoping. A small force of followup transports with more land forces should be built after the balance of power in naval assests have swung in favour of the US.
With all tha being said, I think the US going against Japan slows down europe too much for the benefit. A huge Japanese navy with no enemy means its next to useless after say aus and New zeland fall. With americans building forces on the west coast, flowing north then across Canada to be picked up and dropped off in europe or africa means there is no opportunity for a few jap forces in alaska or mexico to play real havoc, you already have forces there to deal with them. Sure it can threaten africa so always flow some modest forces across north africa so there are always some units to counterattack.
To me there are a few prerequisites before going with a US Pacific strat:
With this disposition of forces Japan has to focus their attacks or risk some losses. If Japan wants to take Buryatia then it won’t have enough force to move its whole fleet to US. If J leaves Buryatia and moves the entire fleet to Hawaii then any transports on SZ60/61 can be attacked by the UK bomber. And the UK sub is can attack any J ships off Indochina.
Above all, during the attack on Pearl the best thing for the US is to submerge the sub before any battle occurs. At the most it can make Japan lose 1 ftr or 1 cruiser but if it is kept alive then it can threaten any Japanese ships on SZ60.
Afterwards, I prefer to keep a balanced fleet. I’m a fan of subs but remember that they can be nearly useless in defense. It is not just they defend at 1 but the attacker can choose not to bring a DD for its attack and your whole submarine fleet will be useless since any hits by attacking Japanese planes will have to be assigned to the surface ships and planes. I’ve killed a few fleets that had a large proportion of subs using this tactic. The enemy subs would be left intact but any carriers or transports would be gone, delaying the US advance into the islands.
For a US1 buy there are a few possibilities:
If buying subs send 1 to each SZ close to Japan. It will force Japan to buy a lot of destroyers if it wants to kill those subs (and the DDs can afterwards be sunk by more US subs, with a net gain for the US IPC wise) or to keep a large fleet for defense on SZ60.
Buy 3 Carriers with the USA in the 1st RD if you are planning on going after Japan. Then buy 3 fighters in RD2 so that you have 6 fighters on the carriers (very strong defense, & mobile). USA buys 5 subs & a transport in RD3 and then leaves port… The whole point to this is that you slow down Japan by forcing it to buy boats to protect it’s fleet. The USA can reach Japans seaszone with 6 planes from the USA coast… landing back on the carriers in the seaszone next door.
Buy 3 Carriers with the USA in the 1st RD if you are planning on going after Japan. Then buy 3 fighters in RD2 so that you have 6 fighters on the carriers (very strong defense, & mobile). USA buys 5 subs & a transport in RD3 and then leaves port… The whole point to this is that you slow down Japan by forcing it to buy boats to protect it’s fleet. The USA can reach Japans seaszone with 6 planes from the USA coast… landing back on the carriers in the seaszone next door.
That gives a lot of time for Japan to prepare for the US fleet. US strikes Solomon at RD4 and will only be in position to hit DEI/Borneo on Rd5.
If the US moves its fleet to either island then the US will have: 3 ACs, 6 ftrs, 1 BB, 1 DD and 6 submarines, possibly 1 cruiser from the East coast. Japan will have 2 ACs, 6 ftrs, 1 bomber, 2 BBs + 1 DD and whatever it buys on rounds 2 to 5. If Japan just adds 3 subs to its fleet then the odds are 64% for winning if attacking the US on Borneo or the DEI.
The US needs to be able to take Solomons on US2 and for the Japanese planes to be out of reach of SZ45 (to prevent an air counterattack on the US fleet). If you take the 2nd buy I mentioned then the US will have 1 AC, 1 BB, 2 DDs (1 DD moves to SZ51 to block any Japanese ships on SZ60 from reaching SZ45) and 2 fighters. If Japan has only 5 planes that can reach SZ45 then US forces on SZ45 have a 73% chance of defending it.
Personally i think the US needs to buy a complex on sinkiang if they are trying to build a fleet against Japan… they have the money to produce some units out of that complex and build a fleet to make japan divide its forces… with russia and UK backing up the US complex to make it a threat to Japan
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. Especially in the older versions. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
KJF works well… as long as the allies can contain germany. Ive played a few games that the Russia and USA made enough money from hammering Japan ( Manchuria, Kwangtung, French indo) And UK Holding most of Africa and making up for it by holding borneo. Germany couldnt get farther than Ukraine and Belo Russia. It depends on a few things of course… but its very possible especially in the 1942 board
If you want to try something completely different, I remember that the Caspian Sub proposed to build an IC in Alaska to build 2 BB’s out every round. Since BB’s are a bit cheaper, this might still be an interesting idea. The funny thing is, if Japan’s fleet is within reach, and it is only a little larger than the USA one (which contains at least 5 BB’s), USA can decide to attack the Japanese fleet, only to retreat when all the free hits of the BB’s have been used. This way, USA can nibble away at the Japanese fleet at no cost. This only works once though :-D
The point of the Alaska IC is that it can reach the Japanese Outer Sea, severely limiting the Japanese building and mobility options (taking the strafe tactic into account).
with cost of buying a complex in alaska you could just buy the units of of california in the 1st round and keep the flow going… it works the same (actually its faster, cause more units are in play on the board) and your not worried about giving japan a possible complex in alaska (even if they dont hold it, it will interrupt the build process)…
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. Especially in the older versions. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
If you are playing against an Axis player who knows what he is doing and axis get average rolls for the first turn then KFG is the best strategy. But sometimes the player taking Germany goes completely on defensive against a possible KGF right from the start and that can give enough time for the Allies to reduce Japan before Russia falls.
On Classic KFJ it is nuts to use. On Revised it is barely better. But on 1942 there are a few new factors coming from the new unit rules that help out the Allies: the inability for the Japanese transports to be used as fodder and the new submarine rules.
with cost of buying a complex in alaska you could just buy the units of of california in the 1st round and keep the flow going… it works the same (actually its faster, cause more units are in play on the board) and your not worried about giving japan a possible complex in alaska (even if they dont hold it, it will interrupt the build process)…
Alaska complex costs 15, is cheaper than ONE BB. The next turn, it allows you to build TWO BB’s each turn. Skipping the IC will give you 3 BB in Alaska by turn 2 (1 from the start, and 2 you built in turn 1 in Western US), building the IC will give you 4 BB in Alaska by turn 2 (1 from the start, 1 built in turn 1 in Western US, 2 built in turn 2 in Alaska). Who’s threatening Japan faster?
Edit: I’m not saying this is ideal, but considering aggressiveness, it’s faster with the IC. Hell, it’s just a fun strat, it’s not trying to break the game, just providing a fun alternative to KGF or sub+ftr war in the Pacific.
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
Has anyone tried the ‘traditional’ KJF strat of using an India factory in conjunction with the USA offensive?
Or alternatively, there is another risky option…build in both SAF and India on UK1, and then use those factories in conjunction with air power built in UK to secure the colonies… The drawback to this is it leaves Germany unopposed in the North Atlantic so they can tank rush Russia no problem.
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
I can’t get behind the Alaska IC idea–too inefficient.
Has anyone tried the ‘traditional’ KJF strat of using an India factory in conjunction with the USA offensive?
Or alternatively, there is another risky option…build in both SAF and India on UK1, and then use those factories in conjunction with air power built in UK to secure the colonies… The drawback to this is it leaves Germany unopposed in the North Atlantic so they can tank rush Russia no problem.
2 IC’s for UK? After G1, the only naval unit they have is the Z1 transport, which will get killed by the German SS’s once they move to Z7. The India IC will fall to Japan
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
If Russia is busy defending India, what’s stopping Germany from killing Russia?
I agree with Calvin. You are dividing your attention and resources into 3 camps none of which has enough power to dictate terms on the ground near them. At best you would spend your time running around putting out fires trying to protect the ICs rather than making the other guy defend his ICs.
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
Russia doesnt need to defend india for this to work… but it is a bit riskier than other strategies… it all depends on the prior moves, wether or not germany takes Egypt (if they dont you possibly got another fighter)
also Uk could possible buy the India IC in the 2nd round again depending on the moves
I agree with Calvin. You are dividing your attention and resources into 3 camps none of which has enough power to dictate terms on the ground near them. At best you would spend your time running around putting out fires trying to protect the ICs rather than making the other guy defend his ICs.
Sometimes as the allies all you need do is make the game last longer than 6 rounds. usually the allies have a better chance of winning in longer games
