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.
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
Not quite true about Hawaii not being valuable for income purposes. It’s worth 6IPC to both sides. Both have an NO involved.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The US can also move the carrier to Johnston Island to catch the fighter.
As Japan, I don’t mind if the US does that because it reduces the ability of both to project threat on J2 and J3.
Good point! But if the IJN is strong in the Carolines, that does make that move suicidal.
They could also get to Wake and utilise the airbase there to defend the fleet. I guess the merit of that varies with how many extra ships/planes the IJN can get there vs Johnston Is.
It depends. If IJN has a loaded CV at Carolines they can hit the CV/FTR with it, if not whatever it sends is dead in the counterstrike. Of course if they do have those planes there, then the allies get better odds in Yunnan and might be able to hold it.
Japan really does not want to be trading ships with the US before it can equalize income. It cannot afford to do so while making the progress it needs to make elsewhere. So before J5 or so any ships traded will inure to USA benefit, even at a net IPC value loss.
In terms of deployment of naval power, Japan’s ideal scenario is forcing the US to mass ships turn after turn after turn without being able to use them effectively until it’s too late to matter. The USA ideal scenario is trading off material to increase the relative power of ANZAC through attrition of IJN units. USA takes a long time to threaten DEI but ANZAC is right there and lacks only the ability to survive Japanese counters. The faster Japanese units are traded away, the faster ANZAC can retake those islands by force.
Are you advocating unloading all CV and attacking Yunnan with everything? Hmm.
Japan can get in 11ftr 8tb 2sb and maybe 2inf vs 14inf (including 2UK units) and 1tb. On average, Japan loses 2inf 3ftr in the first round for killing 13inf. It needs to trade planes to take the territory.
Are you advocating unloading all CV and attacking Yunnan with everything? Hmm.
Japan can get in 11ftr 8tb 2sb and maybe 2inf vs 14inf (including 2UK units) and 1tb. On average, Japan loses 2inf 3ftr in the first round for killing 13inf. It needs to trade planes to take the territory.
Japan is in the position to trade a few planes to totally decimate the combine Chinese and British if they stack Yunnan for J2.
The longer you wait, the worse that stack becomes to dislodge. Not to mention, you now have to worry about your weaker flanks in China being exploited (FIC, Northern China)
As in betting in poker, once you raise after the flop you have to continue raising or you forfeit the lead (assumption you have the best hand). If you give up the lead, then everyone knows you don’t have the best hand and may start calling your bluff. Even if you don’t have the best hand, once you’ve committed, you better play like you do or you’re throwing money away.
Same theory applies for Japan. You take Yunnan every turn, forcing the predictability of both China and India in being forced to send forces to re-take it and defend it, or they must admit defeat - which means you’re gearing for Calcutta with all future purchases. Forcing your opposition into predictable moves is essential for Japanese success. The board is too big and there are too many flanks to allow someone else to dictate your moves.
The second you let China and India do anything else with their purchases, you’re giving up the “lead” and therefore conceding “defeat”. Defeat is defined as they’ve made you spend more time and resources to achieve an end you could have reached more rapidly and with less economic investment (starting units are sunk costs and are not economic investments).
Are you advocating unloading all CV and attacking Yunnan with everything? Hmm.
Japan can get in 11ftr 8tb 2sb and maybe 2inf vs 14inf (including 2UK units) and 1tb. On average, Japan loses 2inf 3ftr in the first round for killing 13inf. It needs to trade planes to take the territory.
In my game there are two calculations for Japan that are vital: the result of a US attack on SZ6; and the result of a Japanese attack on a combined allied stack in Yunnan. Everything else is gravy. If a plane in Carolines means allies can hold the position, you don’t have the luxury of putting the plane in the Carolines.
I keep my Japanese carriers along the coast in the early game all I can to make sure their fighters can threaten Yunnan. You can move a BB DD sub and transport out to Carolines on J1 if you want to project force deeper into the Pacific.
I don’t see anything out there that’s worth the trouble early, but if you think there is then that’s the way to roll.
In my game there are two calculations for Japan that are vital: the result of a US attack on SZ6; and the result of a Japanese attack on a combined allied stack in Yunnan. Everything else is gravy. If a plane in Carolines means allies can hold the position, you don’t have the luxury of putting the plane in the Carolines.
By that logic, the best J1 moves would be:
By J2, you will be able to attack Yunnan (up to 13inf including 1 Soviet Mec) with up to 8inf+3art+planes
Indeed, it seems unnecessary to lose the NO. To prevent being excessively out of position for J2, you would put a naval base on Hainan.
