First Game – What have I learned?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

Good point BM, but how common is a Pearl Harbour strike in this game? I would assume that players low on the strategy ladder playing players who are equally low on the strategy ladder would not see Pearl Harbour in their first few games. If the Japanese player eventually sees value in it after the US abuse their home front position and prove it to be successful, than I can see an experienced Japan player hitting Pearl Harbour to disrupt what the Americans want to do. Regardless, I agree that a strong counter force in case Japan goes for Hawaii is extreamly important, but if it doesn’t happen J1, I’m sending my Bomber to London for SBRs and naval can openers.

I believe an inexperience japanese player will go full blown on Hawaii.
But the experienced ones will go with a so called “Pearl Harbour Light” and won’t expose their precious Carrier against US counter-strike.

“Pearl Harbour Light” roster:
1 Submarine
1 Cruiser
1 Fighter (Can land in Wake Island or come back to Carrier)
1 Fg from Tokyo (must be taken amongst the first casualties, because if it survives, must bring the Carrier in the Hawaiian SZ)
1 Strat Bomber from Tokyo (Must land on Wake Island).

“Pearl Harbour Rookie” roster (not to be done):
1 Submarine
1 Cruiser
1 Carrier
1 Fighter (Land on Carrier)
1 Fg from Tokyo (Must land on Carrier).

[Young Grasshopper]

Great insight, thanks for that.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

Great insight, thanks for that.

My pleasure,
:-D

[Private-Panic]

@greenmustang21:

USSR holding its own on the Eastern front for a while is most likely due to German success in Africa. It is a very hard balancing act to do well in both and you generally have to focus on one, or in your case have Japan also create pressure on the USSR.

Thanks greenmustang - so do you have G typically go for Russia or Africa first?  It probably depends on what R do?

[Private-Panic]

@Baron:

@Young:

Good point BM, but how common is a Pearl Harbour strike in this game? I would assume that players low on the strategy ladder playing players who are equally low on the strategy ladder would not see Pearl Harbour in their first few games. If the Japanese player eventually sees value in it after the US abuse their home front position and prove it to be successful, than I can see an experienced Japan player hitting Pearl Harbour to disrupt what the Americans want to do. Regardless, I agree that a strong counter force in case Japan goes for Hawaii is extreamly important, but if it doesn’t happen J1, I’m sending my Bomber to London for SBRs and naval can openers.

I believe an inexperience japanese player will go full blown on Hawaii.
But the experienced ones will go with a so called “Pearl Harbour Light” and won’t expose their precious Carrier against US counter-strike.

“Pearl Harbour Light” roster:
1 Submarine
1 Cruiser
1 Fighter (Can land in Wake Island or come back to Carrier)
1 Fg from Tokyo (must be taken amongst the first casualties, because if it survives, must bring the Carrier in the Hawaiian SZ)
1 Strat Bomber from Tokyo (Must land on Wake Island).

“Pearl Harbour Rookie” roster (not to be done):
1 Submarine
1 Cruiser
1 Carrier
1 Fighter (Land on Carrier)
1 Fg from Tokyo (Must land on Carrier).

Thanks BM.  As a rookie, the only reason I can think of for J going for Pearl Harbour is to suck the US into a counter-strike that puts their fleet within hitting distance, even if the US only strafes.  Have I got it right?  :?

[innohub]

I tried a few Pearl Harbour Light before.  Japan does have some advantage on this, although this could be screwed on bad dice.

I think there are some value of this approach in certain circumstance.  One case is when you know Germany started with a good opening against Russia and you want to slow down US’s assistance to Atlantic by screwing their Navy force (Some players would like shifting all Navy towards Atlantic for full KGF).  On average dice US won’t be able to counter-strike back the remaining J force effectively.

But if you go for Pearl Harbor Rookie your Japan Navy would have danger to lose them all.  In this case Japan’s Pacific control would be in bigger risk.

[Private-Panic]

@innohub:

I tried a few Pearl Harbour Light before.�  Japan does have some advantage on this, although this could be screwed on bad dice.

I think there are some value of this approach in certain circumstance.�  One case is when you know Germany started with a good opening against Russia and you want to slow down US’s assistance to Atlantic by screwing their Navy force (Some players would like shifting all Navy towards Atlantic for full KGF).�  On average dice US won’t be able to counter-strike back the remaining J force effectively.� Â

But if you go for Pearl Harbor Rookie your Japan Navy would have danger to lose them all.�  In this case Japan’s Pacific control would be in bigger risk.� Â

Thanks innohub.   :-)  My 1941 games and 1942 game have all entailed J consolidating a naval force that leaves the US no chance, but I can certainly now see the value of distracting the US in certain circumstances.  My US default has been to shift the US navy through the Panama canal as I cannot see anything else to do with them and it helps with KGF, which seems the only way to go.  Would I allow a J Pearl Harbour gambit to distract me from this course?  I don’t know - although an earlier post in this thread from me considered the loss of Honolulu to be acceptable in the interests of R survival and KGF.  Perhaps more experience will teach me to be less sanguine?

Cheers
PP

[baron Münchhausen]

@innohub:

I tried a few Pearl Harbour Light before.  Japan does have some advantage on this, although this could be screwed on bad dice.

I think there are some value of this approach in certain circumstance.  One case is when you know Germany started with a good opening against Russia and you want to slow down US’s assistance to Atlantic by screwing their Navy force (Some players would like shifting all Navy towards Atlantic for full KGF).  **On average dice US won’t be able to counter-strike back the remaining J force effectively.  **

But if you go for Pearl Harbor Rookie your Japan Navy would have danger to lose them all.  In this case Japan’s Pacific control would be in bigger risk.

Pearl Harbour attack like Rookie, even with the best luck for Japan (keeping all Japanese’s units on the previous combat, destroying all US’ Sub, DD, Carrier and Fg), gives the US counter-strike this advantageous odds:
2 Fgs, 1 Bomber, 1 DD, 1 Battleship vs 1 Sub, 1 Cruiser, 2 Fgs, 1 Carrier

Overall %*: A. survives: 75.3% D. survives: 18.6% No one survives: 6.1%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=1&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=1&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=2&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=&dCru=1&dCar=1&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

And Japan cannot rebuilt as fast as USA.
So, the issue for Japan is to destroy the US Carrier without compromising to much units against US in favor of keeping an heavier presence along Coastal Asia and India.

This thread is also about this issue.
Pearl Harbor attack feasible?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28136.msg998635#msg998635

[Private-Panic]

PP is an idiot! :-o

I have started my second game and realised that my memory of the board set up was wrong. Because in 1941 as J I always go for Pearl Harbour, but in my first 1942.2 game I did not, my head had convinced itself that there were no US naval at Pearl Harbour and so interpreted your suggestion as being to set up a force that will invite a US counter-strike.

Doh!

Anyway, I did Pearl Harbour light as suggested and it worked a treat. 15 attack + 5 units (hit points?) vs 8 defense + 3 units is good odds. It does leave the J cruiser there to be taken if the US delays either naval or air movement to the European theatre. That delay could prove an Axis victory in itself.

Not sure why I didn’t in my first game. Must have used the J bomber and fighters to support attacks on the Asian mainland, which do feel like a priority. We’ll see how this game pans out …

Thanks for persevering with your contributions on this point despite my incomprehension. :-)

Cheers
PP

[Private-Panic]

Well – despite giving everyone a perfect excuse not to respond following my report on my first game, some very kind web forum colleagues were good enough to let me have their thoughts.  Perhaps this posting will offer a conclusion to the thread. :-D

I have attempted to connect with all your ideas and I hope to show that by this summary.  Again played solo in an effort to be a reasonable opponent by the Battle of Britain on 24th May.

Does the Allied win suggest I am learning anything?

• In Europe R1 did W Russia again but terrible dice rolls lead to a significant cost despite the huge strike advantage.  That sucked G1 into an immediate focus on a counter-attack in R.  G1 tried to do too much, achieving half decent odds on all combats, but not sufficiently to get everything its own way.  Succeeded with retaking W Russia, Egypt, wiping out the US N Atlantic fleet, but failed to destroy the UK N Atlantic fleet. This was to cost G dear. UK1 took Norway and sent a fighter to Leningrad.  The fighter reinforcement idea came from Black Elk in a 1941 Strategy thread I started – so thanks mate!  :-)
• In Asia, in J1 R lost the first of its eastern provinces, which soon interrupted the supply of US fighters. The UK attempted to maximise its India build each turn (as in my previous game) to delay J advances.  Calcutta fell in J5. I wonder whether that 1 move delay compared to the first game was due to the Pearl Harbour gambit in J1?  Sorry to be still unsure on this one BM & innohub, despite the easy victory. :|
• US1 was about replacing its Atlantic fleet and moving the Pacific fleet in that direction.  I seem to be stuck in that mindset and have not discovered a way to maintain a carrier off California for fighter movement, as suggested by YG and wittman  :roll:, although did have a carrier off the east coast.  Moved the Chinese fighter to Stalingrad.  By US2 their forces had reached N Africa (so saving the continent for the UK). :-)
• Western Europe was lost by G in UK5 and swapped hands a number of times thereafter.  The UK was eventually able to withstand G attacks and build a production centre, from which point Berlin was doomed. :-)
• With UK expansion in Scandinavia (including the recapture of Leningrad at one point) and the UK/US battling it out with G in W Europe, R began to take G’s eastern provinces. But Stalingrad was first lost by R in J6. The game became a race by the Allies to kill G and by J to kill R. :evil:
• Moscow was lost on J10, despite the US fleet moving back to the Pacific in an attempt to divert J’s attentions, perhaps because R expended too much materiel on exchanging Stalingrad.  Berlin was not taken till UK11, despite the UK having a production centre in W Europe and the US in Italy. :-(
• J11 took Leningrad and US11 Honolulu.  But now an Allied victory was certain I think due to IPC dominance.  Other than regaining Alaska from a J invasion and keeping the US Pacific fleet within nuisance distance, Allied strategy was to get R back into the game, recovering Leningrad UK 12. :-)
• Although J13 saw the recapture of Leningrad and Honolulu their forces were seriously depleted while the Allies got stronger.  Axis surrendered, although they could have kept it going for a few turns more. :-D

Some initial thoughts:

• G should ensure sufficient early focus on the N Atlantic and restrict other ambitions accordingly.
• The Allied victory was hard fought despite the G failure against UK N Atlantic.  I need to learn some more if I am going to achieve it without that G error. :cry: UK & US attempts to take Berlin took 5 moves.  Not sure why!
• The UK would benefit from additional production capacity in the east, perhaps using Egypt, if defended with a R fighter to help.  Or Indochina, which was captured UK2, but immediately retaken, so unlikely.
• J reaching R asap may be the key to this game?  So the J1 Pearl Harbour gambit will depend on G’s success in the N Atlantic.  If G are successful then a delay to the US fleet’s movement is probably very worthwhile. :|

Still loving this game  :-) and still expecting to be thrashed by wittman!  :wink:

Cheers
PP

[Witt]

And so you should!

Am looking forward, at last, to sitting around a table  with 3 or 4 other people. Been years.

[Young Grasshopper]

Loose lips sink ships… LOL

[Private-Panic]

Let us know how your first game goes YG.  If you are the Allies and win in less than 13 moves I will want to know the reason why! :-D

wittman - don’t count your chickens ……  :-P

[Witt]

If I do, it won’t be to kill and eat them.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Private:

Let us know how your first game goes YG.  If you are the Allies and win in less than 13 moves I will want to know the reason why! :-D

wittman - don’t count your chickens ……  :-P

NP, and if I win as the Allies… it will take all day.

[greenmustang21]

@Private:

@greenmustang21:

USSR holding its own on the Eastern front for a while is most likely due to German success in Africa. It is a very hard balancing act to do well in both and you generally have to focus on one, or in your case have Japan also create pressure on the USSR.

Thanks greenmustang - so do you have G typically go for Russia or Africa first?  It probably depends on what R do?

I usually end up with the Allies because my group is by no means a bunch of pros, but in our games I will usually go hard at Russia. I will spend a little German money on subs to wreck some havoc in the Atlantic and will gather my forces to assault Egypt, but if I can’t take it after turn two then I have most everything going to cripple or take Moscow.

[innohub]

My humble opinion is if your J strategy’s top priority is about capturing India, consolidating J Navy is perhaps a better option than PHGL so that you have 100% focus on Middle East.

Looking forward to your battle report :roll:

@Private:

Well – despite giving everyone a perfect excuse not to respond following my report on my first game, some very kind web forum colleagues were good enough to let me have their thoughts.  Perhaps this posting will offer a conclusion to the thread. :-D

I have attempted to connect with all your ideas and I hope to show that by this summary.  Again played solo in an effort to be a reasonable opponent by the Battle of Britain on 24th May.

Does the Allied win suggest I am learning anything?

• In Europe R1 did W Russia again but terrible dice rolls lead to a significant cost despite the huge strike advantage.  That sucked G1 into an immediate focus on a counter-attack in R.  G1 tried to do too much, achieving half decent odds on all combats, but not sufficiently to get everything its own way.  Succeeded with retaking W Russia, Egypt, wiping out the US N Atlantic fleet, but failed to destroy the UK N Atlantic fleet. This was to cost G dear. UK1 took Norway and sent a fighter to Leningrad.  The fighter reinforcement idea came from Black Elk in a 1941 Strategy thread I started – so thanks mate!  :-)
• In Asia, in J1 R lost the first of its eastern provinces, which soon interrupted the supply of US fighters. The UK attempted to maximise its India build each turn (as in my previous game) to delay J advances.  Calcutta fell in J5. **I wonder whether that 1 move delay compared to the first game was due to the Pearl Harbour gambit in J1? ** Sorry to be still unsure on this one BM & innohub, despite the easy victory. :|
• US1 was about replacing its Atlantic fleet and moving the Pacific fleet in that direction.  I seem to be stuck in that mindset and have not discovered a way to maintain a carrier off California for fighter movement, as suggested by YG and wittman  :roll:, although did have a carrier off the east coast.   Moved the Chinese fighter to Stalingrad.  By US2 their forces had reached N Africa (so saving the continent for the UK). :-)
• Western Europe was lost by G in UK5 and swapped hands a number of times thereafter.  The UK was eventually able to withstand G attacks and build a production centre, from which point Berlin was doomed. :-)
• With UK expansion in Scandinavia (including the recapture of Leningrad at one point) and the UK/US battling it out with G in W Europe, R began to take G’s eastern provinces. But Stalingrad was first lost by R in J6. The game became a race by the Allies to kill G and by J to kill R. :evil:
• Moscow was lost on J10, despite the US fleet moving back to the Pacific in an attempt to divert J’s attentions, perhaps because R expended too much materiel on exchanging Stalingrad.  Berlin was not taken till UK11, despite the UK having a production centre in W Europe and the US in Italy. :-(
• J11 took Leningrad and US11 Honolulu.  But now an Allied victory was certain I think due to IPC dominance.  Other than regaining Alaska from a J invasion and keeping the US Pacific fleet within nuisance distance, Allied strategy was to get R back into the game, recovering Leningrad UK 12. :-)
• Although J13 saw the recapture of Leningrad and Honolulu their forces were seriously depleted while the Allies got stronger.  Axis surrendered, although they could have kept it going for a few turns more. :-D

Some initial thoughts:

• G should ensure sufficient early focus on the N Atlantic and restrict other ambitions accordingly.
• The Allied victory was hard fought despite the G failure against UK N Atlantic.  I need to learn some more if I am going to achieve it without that G error. :cry: UK & US attempts to take Berlin took 5 moves.  Not sure why!
• The UK would benefit from additional production capacity in the east, perhaps using Egypt, if defended with a R fighter to help.  Or Indochina, which was captured UK2, but immediately retaken, so unlikely.
• J reaching R asap may be the key to this game?  So the J1 Pearl Harbour gambit will depend on G’s success in the N Atlantic.  If G are successful then a delay to the US fleet’s movement is probably very worthwhile. :|

Still loving this game  :-) and still expecting to be thrashed by wittman!  :wink:

Cheers
PP

[Private-Panic]

@greenmustang21:

I usually end up with the Allies because my group is by no means a bunch of pros, but in our games I will usually go hard at Russia. I will spend a little German money on subs to wreck some havoc in the Atlantic and will gather my forces to assault Egypt, but if I can’t take it after turn two then I have most everything going to cripple or take Moscow.

Thanks greenmustang. After my first game I was thinking Africa for IPCs first, making Russia easier.  Then game 2 said “whoa” the US can make Africa too much of a distraction - but that was with immediate Allied command of the N Atlantic.  Game 3 was going to test the Africa first concept with Axis initial control of the N Atlantic. I think your post encourages me to do just that, provided G gets Egypt quickly.  Another concept for game 3 was a R1 fighter to Egypt. That is the only way currently in my head to resist a determined G1 move on Egypt. What a great game!

[Private-Panic]

@innohub:

My humble opinion is if your J strategy’s top priority is about capturing India, consolidating J Navy is perhaps a better option than PHGL so that you have 100% focus on Middle East.

Looking forward to your battle report :roll:

Thanks innohub. Good to hear that I might be on the right track, as you always wonder whether your “lessons” are just blind alleys created by basic newbie errors elsewhere.  :-)

Just to register the value of Pearl Harbour light, I can imagine playing it if G has control of the N Atlantic. BM probably uses PHGL because he always achieves that. Then there is value to reducing the US fleet that will challenge G.  Plus there is a little more time for J to get to Moscow before the Allies get across the Atlantic. So not given up on it yet, just trying to place it within the strategic “map” of the game. :|