To answer the question…
Depends on the specific aggressive action…
Killing the Kwang TRN… Yes! By all means! Nuke that f’er… Twice! (fans of Crimson Tide may recall the quote)
The rest of it…
ONLY IF you do not have to counter-attack Africa.
Otherwise, THAT comes first, then decide if you have enough forces to try any of the other ides or not.
We just played this out…Germany did not attack Egypt, so Dest went after the Tran…sub v sub, both killed their target and survived. British fighter landed on American carrier, while carrier and tran moved AA and Inf from India to Egypt.
Japan killed the empty carrier and tranny, but did NOT do Pearl Harbor (instead combining fleet off of Kwantung), which has been far more beneficial for America than leaving the Brit fleet intact would have been for Britain.
As for attacking any Islands, I feel all the Asian troops are far better used in Africa, while the Aussies should definetly take the safest route to the South Atlantic.
I would have to say that the conventional approach is best. Anything else is just risking the potential to kill off a bunch of your units for nothing, in exchange for gains that would be a nuisance to Japan at best.
The India TP and fighter should ALWAYS be used to counterattack Egypt. I would rather lose India early than have German armor bouncing around southern Africa relatively unopposed.
I have recently decided not use the Aussie sub to attack the Japanese sub simply because it’s a 50/50 battle. Your enemy will kill your sub and survive equally as often as you will kill him and survive. Keep the sub and TP together. They provide a much stronger force combined than separate. If you can guarantee that Egypt will be held from Germany without needing to use the fighter, then and only then, will I use it with the Aussie sub to attack the Japanese sub and land on the US CV.
And the most important part. Always bring the CV with the DD to destroy the Kwang TP. Always. No exceptions. Bringing the DD alone leaves you with a 15% chance to lose that battle. I have seen far too many battles in just ONE game (trihero, can you testify?) fall into the upper or lower 15% range to know that it’s not worth the risk of letting that TP survive. That TP must be sunk. Make absolutely sure that it is.
And the most important part. Always bring the CV with the DD to destroy the Kwang TP. Always. No exceptions. Bringing the DD alone leaves you with a 15% chance to lose that battle. I have seen far too many battles in just ONE game (trihero, can you testify?) fall into the upper or lower 15% range to know that it’s not worth the risk of letting that TP survive. That TP must be sunk. Make absolutely sure that it is.
I’m not disagreeing with you on this one. But it’s a ridiculous move! You send 28 ipcs worth of units to their deaths to take out a single unit worth 8. :x
Well, you do hope for some defensive hits when Japan counters to help even the money drain… and you also have to figure int he value of not having 2 more land units in Asia on J2…
Switch, my feelings exactly. And you mean 2 more units on J1.
It means both the Japan based armor AND artillery are hitting the beach J1. That may not seem like much, but it immediately puts the Russian infantry in Yak on their heels when you’ve got 4 inf, 1 art, 1 arm in Bury with air support available.
And it turns at least seven different shades of ugly if the Russian player pushed 6 inf into Bury on R1 expecting that TP to be sunk. Japan could reliably attack China, Bury and Hawaii on J1. The US fleet crushed AND the Siberian front wide open for a big push.
And Sankt, I know how you feel. It looks like a complete imbalance. But, the value of those units is only 28 IPC’s on paper. They are units you didn’t build and they are also under immediate threat so I would say their value is diminished. Especially since they are so far out of position to be very useful for anything but sinking that TP, anyway. Think of it as 28 IPC’s worth of peace of mind. I would cringe if I had to gamble that 1 out of every 6 games I would be giving Japan a big head start.
I wouldn’t focus on being aggressive with the UK because of their thinly stretched lines throughtout the map. When I’m Britain, I send my middle eastern inf to india and make and aggresive assualt on north africa, while threatening western europe with fighters and transports. In my opinion, Britain is a nation which should be focussed on draining german ipcs and ensuring Russian sucess.
well if yur gonna worry about the values of units that u r sending to their deaths in order to take out japanese stuff then wut about the british BB nd destroyer in med that just die thats 36 ipcs which u usually dont get to use
The UK Pacific fleet is worth alot more than 28 IPC’s…… it’s an AC 2 TRN 1 FGT 1 SS 1 DD
62 IPC’s … it’s a strong force and should be used to it’s fullest… because 62 IPC’s worth of navy NOT used and killed by Japan is just horrible… as NoMercy and I learned in our early games.
I supose it always depends on the situation.
But I like the following scenario good.
even if you still control Egypt - you must hold unto it. (send the 2 inf there from India)
send the 1 AC, 1 DD torwards the Japaneese transport.
send your fighter from the AC torwards the Jap sub + teamed up with your british sub. (in non-combat move thr 1 fgt you had versus there jap sub unto the american AC off Hawaii)
if all goes well. the jab sub and transport are destroyed. the american fleet at hawaii is now pretty decently defended. (they will have to send a pretty decent force to take it out. and if they do, quite possibly you can counter on your USA1 turn with 1 trn, 1 BB, 2 fgt, 1 bmb)
knowing this, you may be able to make a push vs his mini islands that are worth a lot to him quicker then you ussually do.
thats one of my takes on this.
you still have a british trn under australia. ( sent it eastward or keep it there a turn seeying what japan may do.)
@Shining:
The UK Pacific fleet is worth alot more than 28 IPC’s…… it’s an AC 2 TRN 1 FGT 1 SS 1 DD
 62 IPC’s … it’s a strong force and should be used to it’s fullest… because 62 IPC’s worth of navy NOT used and killed by Japan is just horrible… as NoMercy and I learned in our early games.
So then Japan just ignores that fleet. Not interdicting Japanese shipping by trying to preserve those units allows Japan more space to operate, to easily destroy the US fleet in Hawaii, and now the UK fleet is not only out of position to be effective but also, since it can’t get any larger, it won’t get very far into the Pacific. The Japanese navy usually operates in one big fleet or in two smaller fleets in close proximity to one another. The UK fleet is no match for the Japanese combined fleet and if you get within range of it you will end up being destroyed with very little Japanese losses.
You are simply better off killing what you can early and/or flooding the ocean with individual units to draw parts of the Japanese fleet out of position to slow them down.
I’ve been toying with a strategy I may try sometime. Combine the Indian/Aussie fleets in sz30 plus an IC in S. Africa on UK1. The combined fleet is only within range of the Jap East Indies fleet, simulations give them only 15% chance of destroying the combined fleet, what’s left can limp over to S. Africa for reinforcement. With half the Jap fleet gone & a restored UK fleet/IC in the S. Indian Ocean I think this could create some real problems for Japan & Germany in Africa. Feel free to rip my strategy to shreds! :mrgreen:
the japs can attack the SZ 30 fleet badly on turn1 btw.
they can hit it with 4 Fgts, 1 BB, 1 AC.
then they can send 1 Bmb, 1 Fgt, 1 DD and perhaps there SS if it surived turn 1 to the Hawaai flee to destroy it (not control the SZ).
i know of this because i did VS Botider in my game against him…
I mean he joined the fleet together, not make a IC in Africa.
but i destroyed his SZ 30 fleet and the hawaii fleet.
thats what i’m saying the uk fleet cant match the japanese fleet without reinforcements and by building an IC in the pacific or africa thats only hurting u and since yur gonna lose india anyway u might as well use some inf from there and let america take back egypt
I’ve been toying with a strategy I may try sometime. Combine the Indian/Aussie fleets in sz30 plus an IC in S. Africa on UK1. The combined fleet is only within range of the Jap East Indies fleet, simulations give them only 15% chance of destroying the combined fleet, what’s left can limp over to S. Africa for reinforcement. With half the Jap fleet gone & a restored UK fleet/IC in the S. Indian Ocean I think this could create some real problems for Japan & Germany in Africa. Feel free to rip my strategy to shreds! :mrgreen:
You maintain control of S. Africa at what cost?
A 15 IPC factory, and further diversion of IPCs to reinforce S. Africa. Progress against Europe slows to a crawl. Your air spends time simply getting to Africa. Germany dominates north Africa, and late game Germany can abandon Africa safely, or Japan can come in and blow up the Indian fleet.
Until someone beats me using one several consecutive times, I will NEVER be a fan of a South African IC (or an Indian IC).
Britain has ONE job in this game… to keep enough pressure on Germany to keep Russia from falling. Period. IC’s and forces adjacent to Antarctica or Japan do not achieve this priority.
Anything else… and I mean ANYTHING else… a couple of sunk Jap ships, a couple of IPC’s briefly raided from Japan or SBR’d from them… or reinforcing US/USSR positions… is all gravy.
I count ALL UK forces outside of Canada and UK DEAD from the start, except for how they can be used to thwart Germany in Africa. So, any damage or defense I can do with them beyond achieving that goal is a bonus. (The obvious exception is the SZ59 TRN, that is UK’s one required and non-optional must-kill against Japan)
Good feedback, & I’m mulling it all over.
Some additional thoughts:
The overall Axis strategy has to be taking out Russia, Germany can’t do that alone they need Japan to pressure Russia from the East. A reconstituted UK fleet with support from a S. Africa IC threatens the Japenese southern attack corridor.
The conventional UK counter-attack in Egypt is only a delaying action in denying Germany control of Africa. An IC in S. Africa will force Germany to devote considerable resources to Africa if they really want to conquer it. Plus Africa constitutes 1/3 of UK’s starting IPC.
An IC in UOSA draws 15 IPC’s on UK1 from UK, then another X IPC a turn for 1 TRN plus land forces. That excludes any higher costs for capital ships. And UK can;t even build and fill a TRN with a build rate of TWO.
And while UK is pouring more than half of their income into Africa… Germany trashes UK’s main fleet, perhaps adding a TRN or 2 to scare the crap out of London, while using those TRNs to shuttle forces to Karelia to accelerate a northern strike on Moscow. This would also deny UK Norway revenue, further reducing UK’s income.
Germany at even just a base $40 (losing Africa but having Karelia) against Russia is a really bad idea for Russia.
As for slowing down Japan… forget the Southern route. Go via China/Sinkiang/Novo and you are immune from any potential threat from UOSA and scan create that back-pressure on Moscow needed to crack Moscow.
@ncscswitch:
An IC in UOSA draws 15 IPC’s on UK1 from UK, then another X IPC a turn for 1 TRN plus land forces. That excludes any higher costs for capital ships. And UK can;t even build and fill a TRN with a build rate of TWO.
And while UK is pouring more than half of their income into Africa… Germany trashes UK’s main fleet, perhaps adding a TRN or 2 to scare the crap out of London, while using those TRNs to shuttle forces to Karelia to accelerate a northern strike on Moscow. This would also deny UK Norway revenue, further reducing UK’s income.
Germany at even just a base $40 (losing Africa but having Karelia) against Russia is a really bad idea for Russia.
As for slowing down Japan… forget the Southern route. Go via China/Sinkiang/Novo and you are immune from any potential threat from UOSA and scan create that back-pressure on Moscow needed to crack Moscow.
Point taken, I wouldn’t consider this strategy without US support. I guess what I’m looking for is a viable KTB (Kill them Both) strategy. Can the US/UK divert 1/2 their incomes to the pacific without sacrificing Russia?
