J1 attack on the Phillippines

[simon33]

In my last game as Axis, the Philippines fighter survived the two transport assault and would have killed the transport off Borneo, which was not escorted. What do people normally do about this? All three carriers are needed for Hawaii so no planes can make it. Putting it into the calculator, the defending fighter survives 28.6% of the time in the Philippines even if the tank is used in a two transport attack. Should it be escorted by the battleship in SZ19 perhaps? Should you also throw in a destroyer, stripping it from Hawaii (I think probably not).

Or should you abandon the Borneo attack and use the TT for something else, either supporting the Philippines or running units to Korea?

[Spendo02]

You don’t need a full contingent to clear the Hawaiian fleet.

With the glut of planes on J1, you’ve got room to take a loss or two in your Hawaiian attack from aircraft that could still be reinforced in NCM.

Just my two cents of course.

I prefer sending the FTR/TAC from Caroline Islands to Flip just to ensure the victory.

[ColonelCarter]

Alternatively, skip the Hawaii attack. Sends fleet in the wrong direction and isn’t an amazing IPC gain material-wise.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@Spendo02:

You don’t need a full contingent to clear the Hawaiian fleet.

With the glut of planes on J1, you’ve got room to take a loss or two in your Hawaiian attack from aircraft that could still be reinforced in NCM.

Agreed. Why send carriers where the US will kill them on US1 if you’re doing a J1 attack? Send planes, take losses in planes if necessary, and make sure that sea zone 26 is a dead zone that the US fleet will die in if the US moves too soon.

Marsh

[simon33]

@Marshmallow:

Agreed. Why send carriers where the US will kill them on US1 if you’re doing a J1 attack? Send planes, take losses in planes if necessary, and make sure that sea zone 26 is a dead zone that the US fleet will die in if the US moves too soon.

Marsh

Because a full attack can withstand the counter attack with acceptable losses. On J2 the transports can come in, J3 any damaged ships should be repaired.

@ColonelCarter:

Alternatively, skip the Hawaii attack. Sends fleet in the wrong direction and isn’t an amazing IPC gain material-wise.

That’s certainly an alternative but it does trouble me to leave a large number of US ships unmolested when they could be sunk.

UK/ANZAC don’t have a very big navy in the Pac/Indian Oceans without US help.

[cyanight]

@simon33:

@Marshmallow:

Agreed. Why send carriers where the US will kill them on US1 if you’re doing a J1 attack? Send planes, take losses in planes if necessary, and make sure that sea zone 26 is a dead zone that the US fleet will die in if the US moves too soon.

Marsh

Because a full attack can withstand the counter attack with acceptable losses. On J2 the transports can come in, J3 any damaged ships should be repaired.

@ColonelCarter:

Alternatively, skip the Hawaii attack. Sends fleet in the wrong direction and isn’t an amazing IPC gain material-wise.

That’s certainly an alternative but it does trouble me to leave a large number of US ships unmolested when they could be sunk.

UK/ANZAC don’t have a very big navy in the Pac/Indian Oceans without US help.

Not sure that’s a very wise attack.  If you cannot take the Hawaiian Island then USA can counter with a CV, DD, CA, BB, 5 fighters(no scramble from Hawaii), Bomber. After that you will have an average of 3-4 units left and ANZAC can take a shot at it too with 3 fighters and a CA.  You will probably win the seazone but with nothing that can threaten what USA just purchased.  Now you have to buy more CV’s and your economy is lacking.  I like to make USA bring the war to Japan.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@cyanight:

Not sure that’s a very wise attack.  If you cannot take the Hawaiian Island then USA can counter with a CV, DD, CA, BB, 5 fighters(no scramble from Hawaii), Bomber. After that you will have an average of 3-4 units left and ANZAC can take a shot at it too with 3 fighters and a CA.  You will probably win the seazone but with nothing that can threaten what USA just purchased.  Now you have to buy more CV’s and your economy is lacking.   I like to make USA bring the war to Japan.

I agree with Cyanknight. It’s not just about “mutual losses” – the US will be able to rebuild their fleet much faster than you until you’ve actually got the money islands and sufficient traction on the mainland (especially if you attack J1). If the US can do the fleet exchange with Japan on US1, it’s probably a game winner for the Allies. Furthermore, losing this much of your fleet this early means that you will probably never hold the money islands and will be pushed back on the mainland.

Marsh

[Spendo02]

Taking Hawaii early is the equivalent of the US taking SZ6 early (like we’ve been discussing on the other thread).

The cost to defend the gain is too high and plays right into your opponents’ strategy.

Best leave Hawaii alone until you need a VC victory.

[taamvan]

Yep, Hawaii is a red herring.  You aren’t adding income, setting the stage for attacking America, or destroying assets of value.

You are taking 1 IPC instead of 20
You are killing 4 ships of the lowest value in a place where anything survivingcan be attacked from 4 separate places
You are not getting any more ready to defend Japan, attack America, or hold it off because you are not going to win an attritional war
You are bringing America into the war on T1 without really suppressing it, UKPAC, ANZAC, CHINA, USSR EAST or any other threat

[simon33]

Not quite true about Hawaii not being valuable for income purposes. It’s worth 6IPC to both sides. Both have an NO involved.

I’ve modelled the likely battle here: http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=5&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=1&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=3&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=3&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=6&dCru=4&dCar=&dBat=1&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=

Suffice to say, if the US made this attack, I’d think it was great as Japan. Japan keeps its BB while the US loses it. Also would keep one or two of their carriers and the planes on them. The BB can’t retreat because then Japan can just come in with some planes to sink it. Any loses should be able to be replaced immediately from Japan. Seriously, the US’s best counter is putting down a DD blocker off Midway. That way you stop the amphibious assault from Japan and also BB repair on J3.

As for the ANZAC navy coming in, possible I guess but the DD can’t reach. It’s still a negative IPC battle and puts them out of position for the Money islands. The Japanese SZ19 navy will be able to take down the money islands, no trouble, probably J2.

Actually, better for Japan to replace two of its Tac Bombers with fighters from Japan.

[cyanight]

Assuming the odds your only going to have 1 damaged BB, 1 CV and 1 Fighter remaining.  Since you don’t have Hawaii those planes cant land anywhere. If Anzac gets just 2 hits your left with a smoking BB and smoking CV which cannot retreat back to Japan because you don’t have the naval base.  Planes cant land on the CV either and you cannot repair it. USA is going to be in great shape to finish off that navy and then comes another round but his time USA has 72+ PUs. Meanwhile in South east Asia Japan’s navy is about the same size as India’s navy  BB, CA, DD and Japan is making less than 40 PU a turn.  You can keep trading units with USA but in the end attrition will defeat Japan.

The worst part about this strategy is that it removes the delay from USA. You are bringing the war to them and meeting them half way instead of making them move 2 turns into the pacific. This delay is what makes USA so difficult to play. You have to build up units and stay at bay from the massive IJN.  But in this case the IJN is about the same as India’s navy which isn’t much.

If your going to attack Hawaii you have to do so that you don’t take any casualties and that you cant be counter attacked. About the only scenario where your strategy might work is if Germany can pull off a Sealion.  This would limit USA’s ability to counter attack.

[simon33]

How do you figure that remaining navy?

The calculator shows 9 hits approximately. Losses are likely to be 1 CV, 3DD, 1Sub, 1Cruiser and 2 Fighters. Leaving 2CV, 4Ftr and 1dBB. That navy could withstand the 3Ftr + Cruiser from ANZAC, with an average of about 2 hits.

[Spendo02]

@simon33:

How do you figure that remaining navy?

The calculator shows 9 hits approximately. Losses are likely to be 1 CV, 3DD, 1Sub, 1Cruiser and 2 Fighters. Leaving 2CV, 4Ftr and 1dBB. That navy could withstand the 3Ftr + Cruiser from ANZAC, with an average of about 2 hits.

Here’s the question:

Where exactly is your navy going on the next turn to continue the momentum?

[simon33]

@Spendo02:

@simon33:

How do you figure that remaining navy?

The calculator shows 9 hits approximately. Losses are likely to be 1 CV, 3DD, 1Sub, 1Cruiser and 2 Fighters. Leaving 2CV, 4Ftr and 1dBB. That navy could withstand the 3Ftr + Cruiser from ANZAC, with an average of about 2 hits.

Here’s the question:

Where exactly is your navy going on the next turn to continue the momentum?

Fair question. Depends on US action. If the US are sensible, the IJN will need to bug out, probably to the Marshall Islands (SZ32). ANZAC would need to make sure that the IJN can’t usefully threaten them. J3 the flotilla would likely move to the Carolines to repair ships and take advantage of the naval base. But if a sizeable US force is sitting at Hawaii, I guess they can’t do so. The alternative, depending on the US1 build is to return to SZ6 via SZ23, SZ24 or SZ16.

Does this slow momentum in the money islands? Perhaps. The IJN could have 1BB off Borneo (SZ43) which would need to have a sub escort to prevent a 61% attack by the UK against an unescorted BB. Not being able to put in the sub weakens the naval force attacking the Philippines to 1DD 1Ftr. Hmm, not really enough - 25% chance the landing is blocked is too high. This leaves needing to sacrifice the transport which is attacking Borneo.

If that transport is lost, the money island NO is not gainable J2 and needs to wait until J3.

I might have to have a bit more of a think about this. It seems that not all the attacks are constructive and you need to decide on priorities.

[SubmersedElk]

With all the things Japan needs to get done in the first four turns, diverting even a single unit to Hawaii borders on insanity.

You’ve got all of East and South Asia, as well as the entire South Pacific, there for the taking. Allies can’t stop you. And you’re going to attack Hawaii instead? Do you want to lose?

[simon33]

Then where is the advantage in going to war J1?

Without SBR on Calcutta J2, which would have a negative expected value with a UK1 ftr buy, you don’t actually weaken UK Pac that much by going J1 vs J2.

Are you sure you aren’t overstating it here though:
@SubmersedElk:

With all the things Japan needs to get done in the first four turns, diverting even a single unit to Hawaii borders on insanity.

Seems to make sense to send at least a sub, a DD and some planes there.

[ColonelCarter]

The advantage is that you kill Philippines material that otherwise would escape, and vastly reduce British income a turn earlier while ending up with the same amount in captured territory as you would get from the peace NO with the US. Earlier FIC factory, too.

This comes at the cost of a stronger China and ANZAC, (US loses as much material as they gain in money, and money is worse than initial units) but those ANZAC IPCs aren’t as big an issue if you have a strong presence in the south Pacific. Trading your navy down with the US early lets ANZAC’s smaller force be significantly more effective against the whittled down Japanese.

[SubmersedElk]

@simon33:

Then where is the advantage in going to war J1?

Without SBR on Calcutta J2, which would have a negative expected value with a UK1 ftr buy, you don’t actually weaken UK Pac that much by going J1 vs J2.

Are you sure you aren’t overstating it here though:
@SubmersedElk:

With all the things Japan needs to get done in the first four turns, diverting even a single unit to Hawaii borders on insanity.

Seems to make sense to send at least a sub, a DD and some planes there.

Nope. The US can replace its losses more easily than Japan. That sub and DD are 100% dead in the counter, the net loss for US is of no importance to them. The US is now making over 70 IPC per turn and you have 40 IPC income to not only deal with that but also everything you want to do elsewhere.

You could instead be using that sub effectively in the south and the DD as a blocker to protect SZ6 from attacks, instead of now having to replace the DD and being down a sub.

Meanwhile, your planes and any carriers you sent to land them on are now out of position and you lose leverage in key Asian territories such as Yunnan where maximized strike ability is vital to preventing a frustrating enemy multinational stack from forming.

[simon33]

I guess if you use one carrier for Borneo and one for the Philippines, that only leaves one carrier and you have to allow for a two plane scramble.

I think I’m seeing where you are coming from here.

But then we go back to why its worthwhile to DOW J1? While you can hammer the UK’s income down from 21 to 14 assuming a UK landing on Sumatra, ANZAC’s goes up from 14 (landing on Java) to 20 (Landing on Dutch New Guinea). US’s goes from 52 to 70 also. You also get the US IC upgrade earlier.

Is it really worth it? Particularly given that you need to strip resources from attacking China.

[simon33]

The other point is that with a J2 DOW, you don’t allow the ftr to escape. Furthest it can reach is Guam unless the US boldly moves its carrier to SZ31 (Wake Island). The DD/Sub can reach SZ54 (Qld) but could easily be destroyed there. If a sizeable portion of the IJN is in Carolines, it can reach both.