Economics of a J1 attack

[Vareel]

Hello, I wished to examine the economic value in a J1 attack because I was curious, bored, and wanted to share.  This J1 attack is assumed to hit Kwangtung, Philippines, and Celebs, along with sinking transport at pearl, UK bb/transports, and ANZAC dd/transport.  To me, this seems to be the most economical J1.

By attacking J1 you give the US a 40 IPC boost, so the desire is to offset this with your gains.  With the J1 attack you cost the allies in income:

US
7 (island/NO)

UK
8 (Kwang/NO)
4 (DEI landing)

ANZAC
5 (assuming UK grabs there NO with a transport on UK1)
–---------
24 IPCs

As Japan you gain 8 IPCs that not attacking J1 you would not have gotten
32 IPC swing.

Now you also manage to kill some valuable allied units that would have escaped.  Now the only units that you can kill on J1 that you should not be able to get at on J2 anyway would be the US transport and US bomber/fighter at Phi, along with possibly the ANZAC destroyer/transport which you should be in range of anyway on J2 depending.  So we’ll just take the US units, worth 29 IPCs.

32 + 29 = 61.  So you are ahead by 21 IPC in value compared to not attacking.

Now the downside, and there is always a downside.  You have terrible positioning against China at this point forcing you to build mainland factories, little to no threat against Pearl allowing the US starting fleet to get into action right away, your bombers are exposed sitting at Siam to UK airpower, and you are likely to get diced in one of your battles and loose.  But I think the biggest thing is that, atleast in my opinion, the US IPCs are the most valuable for the allies.  They are the only ones who can truely go toe to toe in the DEI area with Japan.  Even if UK gets 29 IPCs on turn 1 it is an annoyance, but they cannot truly compete with Japan.  By waiting a turn or two to strike with Japan, you buy yourself a turn or two before the US can do anything substantial.

Any thoughts?

[RJL518]

interesting idea…ill try it on my next game and well see if u are right…

[Hobbes]

I’d add 4 more IPCs to the English total, since they can land on 2 islands on the first round.

You can send the Kiangsu planes to protect the J bombers. It is also probable that you’ll lose 1 or even 2 of them against the UK BB.

You should end up with your fleet on 3 locations: Carolines, Celebes and Phillipines. Any transports built on Japan can be defended by fighters left there against the Hawaiian bomber.
US will likely move their fleet and airforce to Hawaii but on J2 the remaining 3 DEI islands should be Japanese adding more 17 IPCs. Then it will be holding the US while trying to go after ANZAC or UK.

[Uncle_Joe]

32 + 29 = 61.  So you are ahead by 21 IPC in value compared to not attacking.

Yes and no. Remember that you are giving the US +40 IPCs for potentially a 2nd turns as well unless you advocated a J2 alternative. The flip side is that the UK makes less money instead.

[ksmckay]

I think Hobbes might have alluded to this but if you attack J1 you should attack the UK BB and 2 trns with your 4 bombers (you could also send a ftr or tac but that makes taking Phi hard to do).  Either way you can get at least 4 planes to take out the BB and really cripple the UK.  Pretty sure this is a must for a J1 attack as it takes out those trans and makes it easy to finish off the DEI without having to worry about UK land forces (and extra UK income).

I think J1 works well now due to a lack of familiarity with how to play the allies.  I think once we get a few games going it will get tougher as we will develop allied strategy to expose Japan which is vulnerable especially on the mainland after going for a J1 attack.

Though right now its either J1 or J3 as J2 I think is almost worthless because you dont get that much better setup and you give the allies a chance to regroup and protect some of the units that are so vulnerable J1.

[Vareel]

Ok a couple of notes.  First off I personally prefer a J2 attack myself as you can still smash almost all of the allied starting units that you could have on J1.  I see a J3 attack as being too late, as the allies income gets a bit too high for my taste if you let them get all of DEI.

And Hobbes, the UK could get another 4 IPC island, or as I stated and assumed they did, they can grab the ANZAC NO island.  Its only 1 more IPC but I wanted to see the maximum possible swing.

[Hobbes]

@Vareel:

Ok a couple of notes.  First off I personally prefer a J2 attack myself as you can still smash almost all of the allied starting units that you could have on J1.  I see a J3 attack as being too late, as the allies income gets a bit too high for my taste if you let them get all of DEI.

And Hobbes, the UK could get another 4 IPC island, or as I stated and assumed they did, they can grab the ANZAC NO island.  Its only 1 more IPC but I wanted to see the maximum possible swing.

The thing is that with a J2 attack, the US Navy and Air Force can move to Hawaii at US1 and J will have a major threat coming from that direction. And the US/UK/ANZAC can move their DDs to block any attacks against Sumatra or Java, while taking both islands. J might have to choose between going after the US fleet or taking both islands.

[Vareel]

@Hobbes:

The thing is that with a J2 attack, the US Navy and Air Force can move to Hawaii at US1 and J will have a major threat coming from that direction. And the US/UK/ANZAC can move their DDs to block any attacks against Sumatra or Java, while taking both islands. J might have to choose between going after the US fleet or taking both islands.

Why?  When you start with 3 carriers and a ton of other boats atleast for the first few turns your only limitation is your transport capacity and allied blocks.

[Hobbes]

@Vareel:

@Hobbes:

The thing is that with a J2 attack, the US Navy and Air Force can move to Hawaii at US1 and J will have a major threat coming from that direction. And the US/UK/ANZAC can move their DDs to block any attacks against Sumatra or Java, while taking both islands. J might have to choose between going after the US fleet or taking both islands.

Why?  When you start with 3 carriers and a ton of other boats atleast for the first few turns your only limitation is your transport capacity and allied blocks.

If J decides to go after Hawaii it will have to bring a large force to defeat all the units there and to prevent any counterattacks. US will have 1 AC, 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 SS, 3 FTR and 3 TB. That’s about 43 defense points and 11 units. And the remaining J fleet off Hawaii can be attacked by 3 SBMRs and whatever was the US buy.

Meanwhile the remainder of J’s ships will be attacking the DEI but the UK/ANZAC airforces makes it necessary to protect at least some transports, if you don’t want to risk your takeover of DEI to stall.

It is a risk… but there are also risks in attacking later or sooner :)

[Vareel]

Oh i’m not saying you have to attack hawawi, nor that you should try to take it.  But it is a good idea I feel to send the US fleet at pearl to the bottom of the ocean.  The way I do that is with 2 carriers parked in SZ 31 with some extra boats to add to the attack, like a BB, pair of DDs, pair of subs, and keep a bomber or two in range, along with a purchased sub or 2.  Just 2 carriers alone in SZ 31 bring 8 planes into the fight allowing for 24 punch and 8 or 12 hits if you bring the carriers.  Add to that a pair of bombers, 2 DDs and a BB and you got 40 punch with 6 more hits.  And thats not counting the purchased units or the pair of subs you can position there if you want.  That still leaves you with a carrier, a battleship, 2 DDs, 2 Cru, and 15 planes for the DEI area.  Now I do sacrifice my transports to take DEI islands in the end, but I feel it is worth it.  If the US cannot be at Pearl on US2, or is sunk there, the earliest turn they can get to the DEI area with a significant force would be on US 5.

[Hobbes]

@Vareel:

Oh i’m not saying you have to attack hawawi, nor that you should try to take it.  But it is a good idea I feel to send the US fleet at pearl to the bottom of the ocean.  The way I do that is with 2 carriers parked in SZ 31 with some extra boats to add to the attack, like a BB, pair of DDs, pair of subs, and keep a bomber or two in range, along with a purchased sub or 2.  Just 2 carriers alone in SZ 31 bring 8 planes into the fight allowing for 24 punch and 8 or 12 hits if you bring the carriers.  Add to that a pair of bombers, 2 DDs and a BB and you got 40 punch with 6 more hits.  And thats not counting the purchased units or the pair of subs you can position there if you want.  That still leaves you with a carrier, a battleship, 2 DDs, 2 Cru, and 15 planes for the DEI area.  Now I do sacrifice my transports to take DEI islands in the end, but I feel it is worth it.  If the US cannot be at Pearl on US2, or is sunk there, the earliest turn they can get to the DEI area with a significant force would be on US 5.

I understood that the propose is to prevent the US from moving the fleet to Pearl, not taking Hawaii itself and I agree that it is a good move. Most likely I’d move the US fleet to Line Islands and buy a naval base, allowing them to reach Australia on the next turn by leaving a DD on Johnson to block any J attacks.

The worse though will be if the US moves its airforce to Australia after J has attacked. Any Jap fleet on the East Indies will be threatened.