When I get Allies I always put 3 of the bid towards an ANZAC inf in New Guinea. The long term payoff on that one is many times the investment.
My understanding is that typical bidding rules do not allow placement of units where none currently exist. Are you using non-standard bidding rules?
Marsh
1 BB 111, 1 DD 110
1 BB 106, 1 DD 91
Can you say massive UK landings on the continent on UK3? I knew you could. Why waste time going after the Med when you can be landing on the continent before Germany is even halfway to Moscow?
There’s no shortage of fun ideas, but I stand by what I’ve said before: no idea how the Allies lose more than the occasional game with a bid like that.
IMO, it would take either phenomenal mismanagement or several consecutive bad rolls on key battles for the Allies to lose with a bid like that.
Marsh
@Marshmallow:
When I get Allies I always put 3 of the bid towards an ANZAC inf in New Guinea. The long term payoff on that one is many times the investment.
My understanding is that typical bidding rules do not allow placement of units where none currently exist. Are you using non-standard bidding rules?
Marsh
My understanding of bidding restrictions is that the country getting the bid has to own the territory, or in the case of sea units has to have a unit present in the SZ, and that no more than one bid unit may be placed per territory. I’ve not had anyone object to the inf in New Guinea.
@Marshmallow:
There’s no shortage of fun ideas, but I stand by what I’ve said before: no idea how the Allies lose more than the occasional game with a bid like that.Â
IMO, it would take either phenomenal mismanagement or several consecutive bad rolls on key battles for the Allies to lose with a bid like that.
Marsh
Don’t worry - I am sure I could do it!
Also why not allow more then 1 unit for each zone.
Too easy at that point, no?
On a 28 bid the Allies could absolutely stack a spot. If you’re talking unlimited, how about 9 inf in Yunan? Japan will never gain control of Asia.
And, once again, since I love these theoretical bids:
8 inf 1 art in India
4 transports in EUS (like Marsh said: the Allies will be heavily in Europe by turn 3)
2 fighters in Scotland and a DD in 111 (one of those fleets is going untouched)
8 inf 1 art in Paris
a ftr and 3 subs in 98
and my personal favorite: 7 artillery in Amur
- and my personal favorite: 7 artillery in Amur
My personal favorite from that list would be Paris – it would transform the whole game, making France all but unconquerable by Germany, and allow the US to focus totally on the Pacific.
Marsh
Nah, they could still take Paris, they would just have to send all their planes at it and leave all the UK navy alone.
Surprisingly, 8 inf 1 art in Paris only forces 3 planes into the attack to get 100% in LL–though you have a good chance to lose a plane and not all your tanks will survive. But it only pulls 1 plane from navy attacks if you want to get risky there.
I’d probably go 2 subs each in 106 and 91, 2fig 2 tac 1 bmb max ground to Paris, and 1 sub 3 fig 3 tac 1 bmb to SZ111 in that situation.
Can’t the British BB sail to Queensland Rd1, becoming an important backbone of the Allied navy when trying to advance on Japan? It’s only out of position Rd1, which is why killing it is such a boon. Not to mention you already kill more that 20 IPCs of immediate US units that can’t be back in the fight until Rd 3/4 (collect extra Rd1, spend it Rd2, planes can reach SZ6 Rd3 [although you might not have extra carrier space for them], ships can do something Rd4)
Also, you talk a lot about the bombard value of Battleships/Cruisers. How often do you find yourself actually using these? You can’t bombard in island trades because they’ll just die to air counterattacks, which is what most of the transports in the Pac are used for.
I agree. And why didn’t the Philippines and Hawaiian navy sail to Queensland with the land based planes and Hawaiian troops? I thought it was weird that the US Philippines navy stopped at northern territory. Am I missing something?
In fact, not all the Hawaiian navy is needed to hold Queensland with much of the IJN out of range. But it’s a nice position for them so you might as well unless a better idea presents.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but unless Japan has attacked UK and therefore DoW the USA, American units cannot end their turn in SZ 54. I like your idea to send the UKBB that way instead of just having it die with the rest of the UK fleet defending SZ 39, but in any event, if J1 DoW, then the American units are likely dead, and if not, they cant end their turns next to ANZAC or UK territory. Right? My only point is that getting to move everything and all nations to SZ54, intact and at war, would be rare.
Another question;
UK can declare war on Japan at any time,
but, the ‘tripwire’ of DoW on UK/ANZAC bringing USA into the war if attacked unprovoked is lost
UK would get its bonus (since it would be intact and whole in every event that it could declare before Japan does)
but the downside is that USA would not be at war with anyone, and not get its bonuses, until USA4.
(The old disadvantage is that USA’s +20 bonus for the commencement of war would also be lost, but that is a 1940 Pacific rule only)
It would appear that this is an bad strategic move, since if UK DoW UK1, Japan could take most or all of UK territory without having to worry about any American attacks or about any substantial American bonuses early on coming into play in the Pacific.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but unless Japan has attacked UK and therefore DoW the USA, American units cannot end their turn in SZ 54. I like your idea to send the UKBB that way instead of just having it die with the rest of the UK fleet defending SZ 39, but in any event, if J1 DoW, then the American units are likely dead, and if not, they cant end their turns next to ANZAC or UK territory. Right?
US can’t end next to Japanese territories when not at war. Next to ANZAC, UK Pac, Dutch, French, Russian is OK. Planes (EDIT: and ground units) can’t land on these countries’ territories however, because the US is not allied with them yet.
Planes can’t land on these countries’ territories however, because the US is not allied with them yet.
Good point. So the Philippines fighter can only stay in place or go to Guam unless the US carrier moves into range.
Thinking some more about counters to this strategy, could a multi national naval stand off Java work? Sorry, not sure I understand the meaning of the icons in the graphic. But you can have:
UK BB
UK Cruiser
UK DD
ANZAC DD
US DD
US Sub
Probably not enough against a couple of carriers supported by land based planes and some ships. Is that what is present?
There is also the option of landing on Java and reinforcing with ANZAC troops and planes. 4 inf and 2 fighters aided by a DD off the coast to prevent a bombardment would at least require two transports to do a landing.
Just throwing ideas into the air. Please don’t jump on me.
Thinking some more about counters to this strategy, could a multi national naval stand off Java work? Sorry, not sure I understand the meaning of the icons in the graphic. But you can have:
UK BB
UK Cruiser
UK DD
ANZAC DD
US DD
US SubProbably not enough against a couple of carriers supported by land based planes and some ships. Is that what is present?
There is also the option of landing on Java and reinforcing with ANZAC troops and planes. 4 inf and 2 fighters aided by a DD off the coast to prevent a bombardment would at least require two transports to do a landing.
Just throwing ideas into the air. Please don’t jump on me.
From the J2 position Japan has 14 air and 9 ships that can hit the Java SZ, and there are 6 fully loadable transports that could drop onto the island, so Japan could quite easily kill both the fleet and the garrison in the same move. It would essentially be walking right into the teeth of the IJN. The distraction value would not likely be enough to offset the loss of almost all potentially effective Allied forces in the area.
US can’t end next to Japanese territories when not at war. Next to ANZAC, UK Pac, Dutch, French, Russian is OK. Planes can’t land on these countries’ territories however, because the US is not allied with them yet.
Thank you guys
Thinking some more about counters to this strategy, could a multi national naval stand off Java work? Sorry, not sure I understand the meaning of the icons in the graphic. But you can have:
UK BB
UK Cruiser
UK DD
ANZAC DD
US DD
US SubProbably not enough against a couple of carriers supported by land based planes and some ships. Is that what is present?
There is also the option of landing on Java and reinforcing with ANZAC troops and planes. 4 inf and 2 fighters aided by a DD off the coast to prevent a bombardment would at least require two transports to do a landing.
Just throwing ideas into the air. Please don’t jump on me.
From the J2 position Japan has 14 air and 9 ships that can hit the Java SZ, and there are 6 fully loadable transports that could drop onto the island, so Japan could quite easily kill both the fleet and the garrison in the same move. It would essentially be walking right into the teeth of the IJN. The distraction value would not likely be enough to offset the loss of almost all potentially effective Allied forces in the area.
This scenario reminds me somewhat of the Battle of the Java Sea where, when it all was over, a Japanese rear admiral commented to his defeated opponent: “You fought bravely, but not very skilfully”.
@Herr:
Thinking some more about counters to this strategy, could a multi national naval stand off Java work?
From the J2 position Japan has 14 air and 9 ships that can hit the Java SZ, and there are 6 fully loadable transports that could drop onto the island, so Japan could quite easily kill both the fleet and the garrison in the same move. It would essentially be walking right into the teeth of the IJN. The distraction value would not likely be enough to offset the loss of almost all potentially effective Allied forces in the area.
This scenario reminds me somewhat of the Battle of the Java Sea where, when it all was over, a Japanese rear admiral commented to his defeated opponent: “You fought bravely, but not very skilfully”.
Many games ago, I tried a similar move–combining the UK/Anzac fleets off Celebes while seizing islands–and got totally obliterated during a J2 attack.
Allies could potentially stack Java SZ after J1 with 1 BB, 2 cruisers, 3 DD, 1 sub and can put 4 inf 5 ftr 1tac on Java proper.
As Japan I could theoretically respond to that by sending in 2BB 2 cruisers 1 sub 3AC 2bmb 2ftr 2tac, allowing a landing on Java with 6 inf 5 art 1 arm 2 ftr 2 tac. Running the numbers that’s about a 95 IPC swing, and of course the Allies would have zero warships, zero transports and zero airforce afterward. US could ship in what’s in Hawaii and a bmb for a counter but it would be facing 5-7 capital ships and a half-dozen air 1-2 DDs defending, so that would be another big win for Japan if it were tried.
Alternatively, Japan could be prevented from taking Java for one round by picketing 5 different sea zones using 3 DD 2 cruisers. In the J2 scenario an ANZAC DD build or the French DD could prevent amphibious bombardment the next round, and those fighters if stationed in Java could counterstrike one or two of the picket killers, and that’s about as difficult as they could make it. With no air threat left except perhaps the US bomber, Japanese transports wouldn’t need warship cover for most of their movements for a few rounds.
I don’t like how those numbers add up for Allies, they’re better off consolidating a fleet off Queensland that could do some real damage to the IJN defensively and would have some protection from airbase fighters stationed there as well as backup 1 turn away in Hawaii moved there from western US SZ. If you sacrifice all that material then Japan is not under naval pressure at all for quite some time.
Ok, so that leaves strengthening Queensland as the standard move.
I guess the UK Cruiser and Destroyer off India can sail around to the south of Java so long as they stay out of range of the IJN.
I imagine that if the Japanese on J2 take Hawaii then the standard move US2 is to take it back, but that still leaves a pretty significant UK and ANZAC fleet to mess with the IJN or is it not enough to take out its smaller forces such as off Java and still survive?
Oh, actually your US player didn’t do this. What is around Hawaii US2? I’d have thought 2DD 2Sub Cruiser AC and Battleship plus buys plus air could take down anything Japan could muster there. Never having played against this move, perhaps I’m wrong.
In this case, the US player moved into the Atlantic on US1. If he moves the western fleet to Hawaii, a DD blocker plus a carrier and a few airplanes are sufficient to deter a quick attack on SZ6 or Japan proper. With half the initial fleet at the Philippines at the end of J2, Japan is in a position to defend SZ6 if the US goes full Pac, or can use that fleet offensively if the US doesn’t muster a Pac naval threat.
If the US spends several early turns building in the Pacific, Japan can use the half-fleet plus carrier builds, DD blockers, and air sent home from the mainland to defend SZ6 for as long as it needs to. In that case, Japan can’t be as aggressive, but Axis makes up for it by having better opportunities on the European side of the map.
