Personally I think this game is all about timing and time pressure. All of this talk about 7 TRS and 18 DDs and massive showdowns of fleets makes me wonder if we’re all playing the same game. :)
IMO, this game is OVER in about 4-5 turns after the Japanese DoW. Yes, it’s possible for it still be in doubt after that, but that is very rare for us.
Someone posted on another forum that the key to win as Allies is to make moves that look suicidal and that expression stuck to me so much that I followed it on my last game as Allies.
The whole Allied key to the naval battles seems to be not only the attacks but the counterattacks that follow them.
3 US carriers sunk by the Japs off New Guinea? No problem, order the shipyards back to build more and attack the remaining Jap fleet (it actually happened to me) with the US backups and the ANZACs.
Yes, that was me and yes, I still think that is way to go. :) The Allies need to spread Japan out and force her to defend multiple areas. And you cant do that with a fleet-massing standoff. The Allies HAVE to ratchet up the pressure on the Japanese from the get-go. If Japan doesnt attack on J1, then the Allies have to start pushing buttons to force Japan to attack as early as possible or suffer the consequences.
The minute Japan attacks, the Allies have to begin launching spoiling attacks and raids (as they did historically). You cant stand off the whole Japanese fleet so it’s not worth trying. You have to spread the Japanese fleet around and take them on in smaller packets or else threaten to take away their econ with raids if they stay massed. The hardest hurdle for us was making those 3-4 ‘bad’ moves each turn that add up to a being a ‘good’ move for the Allies as whole…
In reply to a J1 attack, what should USA build? UK? Anzac?
My thoughts were to build up the firepower of the US fleet as quickly as possible: 1 additional carrier and DD’s.
Raiding would involve transports. How soon can the US afford to buy transports after a J1 attack?
Understand US only has west coast fleet left after J1 attack. Anzac down to 1 DD, 1 Transp, Uk down to DD, CA.
Anzac should build a fighter to replace the one sent to help UK. UK is busy building infantry.
What you build in response to a J1 attack largely depends on what the Japanese have where. If they are mostly down in PI and DEI, then the US has a little breathing space. Of course with only 17 IPCs on US1 it’s not really that relevent what you buy IMO. I’d probably go with the CV or 2 DDs, After that, you’ll definitely need TRs. Without them, the Japanese dont have to come out to play. They can just sit back in a mass and create the stand-off that results in an Allied loss.
For ANZAC, I’d prolly go with a TR or a plane if the Japanese are near Australia.
For the Brits? Yeah, prolly more Infantry. If the Japanese are massed at PI or the Carolines, maybe a Sub or a TR depending. Again, the TR is necessary to provoke a Japanese response. If it will survive the turn and be able to land on an island in the DEI, it’s an investment worth making if for no other reason than it will annoy the Japanese. ;)
If you look at the above, you’ll likely have 2-3 TRs quickly in striking position to something of interest to the Japanese. Sure, they can stomp out any of those threats but they’ll have a harder time stomping out ALL of those threats. And that’s where the harassment begins. After that, the US can start to turn up the pressure a bit more with TRs and escorts (DDs and maybe a CA for shelling outpost defenders). A nice safe ‘normal’ US outlay might be 2 DDs, 2 SSs, 1 CA, 1 TR, 1 Inf, 1 Art for 54 IPCs. That gives you some good hitting power and some good diversity as well. If you need to picket, invade, hit convoys, or fight a minor engagement you have the tools with that build. And it keeps the Japanese guessing. If they come at you with full force, use the ANZACS and Brits to raid and wear them down by attrition.
The overriding issue is that Japan is on a tight timetable after a J1 attack. The US is immediately making 55 and the Chinese and Brits are still in the game. The Japanese econ is likely less than half of the combined Allies for the first turn or so. Japan will be feeling the pressure to crank her income and that early in the game she will still need to be building TRs and ground troops, diluting what she can build to augment the fleet. She can’t be everywhere and you know the places where she wants to be (likely the DEI and PI and then supporting operations against the Brits). Force Japan to guard each of the islands and that will quickly run her out of ground forces for the mainland and/or TRs. In the end, the game will likely be decided in the first 4-5 turn after a J1 attack. If Japan succeeds in holding things together and has her econ roughly on par with the surviving Allies, she’ll win. If not, by turn 5 the Japanese will likely be strained to the breaking point.
even if india falls, japs are far from winning, US and anzacs ourproduce them
How is that? I can’t imagine India falling without having secured the DEI. And with those accomplished Japan should be making 75+, the US 55, and ANZAC maaaaybe 15. So in addition to having more income Japan will have superior coordination and positioning. Unless Japan is on the ropes at sea when India falls, I feel the game is usually over at that point. I’ve only seen one comeback once India fell and that was a collosal blunder by the Japanese coupled with some bad dice in a major naval engagement.
anzacs ats 15 each round, 2 rounds = 30 IPC = 5 subs
do destroy those 5 subs, BLOCKING EAST-INDIES, it costs japan 5 destroyers: 40
and 75 plus? japan starts with 26, china is 12, FIC+DEI= 13+5, britain is 16, and US loses phillipines (2) and india = 79
but that’s without constant subs blocking east indies and/or japan, and if anzacs do suicide run on lets say Borneo, it’s -9 for japan
jaan can and will be beaten
I think it’s 78 for a total Asia conquest. Britain’s last dollar is safe in Canada (ish).
Once that is complete, the Allies have to had made major inroads into naval supremacy or they lose. It’s that simple. If they have, then they likely win. And cutting off the ANZAC bonus is relatively simple early on. At first we just ignored it as the ANZACS were deemed to be a low-priority threat. As we have become better with Allied strategy, it’s more important for the Japanese to take away that bonus or delay it as long as possible (and pee in the Allies’ pool for a bit).
That is why I am happier with a J2 or J3 Japanese attack (depending on Allied actions). By delaying for a few turns you can have more TRs out and have more in position to take everything you want on the first turn of the attack. One of those goals would be to take 1 of the 4 territories that the ANZACS need for their bonus. Sure, it can be taken back, but that is one more turn that the Allies aren’t peeing in YOUR pool and as I said above, I believe this game is usually decided within 4-5 turns of DoW.
Also keep in mind that killing those ANZAC subs do not necessarily result in the loss of a DD. Not at all. If Japan can keep Allied heavy forces out the area, those DDs are likely to survive for more than one use. Also, there are only so many approaches to the DEI from Australia and the ANZACS cant afford to stack the subs (or they lose multiples at once). That limits what can realistically deploy to good positions in one or two turns. This is important because trickling them in rarely does much good since Japan can kill them piecemeal.
As Japan, you start with a plethora of heavy units. Japan needs to concentrate on DDs, some subs, a lot of TRs, and ground forces. Everything else is a luxury that is not necessary in the early critical stages of the game. One Japan has secured Asia, that restriction more or less goes away and you’ll start to see more CVs churning out as well. At that point I believe the Allies have run their course. Either Japan has a secure econ or she doesnt at that point and if she does, the Allies are finished.
I implemented the tactic of sending US transports through the Carolines. It did not work, but I also made some mistakes. After correcting them, the allies won in a duplicatable fashion.
#1 - I had not purchased any extra AA for the brits in prior games. I don’t know why it took so long to occur to me, but it finally did and worked fairly well.
#2 - It also should have occurred to me (because of my prior experience with A&A 1984 and 2004) that the US should be sending fighters to support the UK, just like the US and UK did for Russia in the prior games. The US lost several planes in defense of the UK, but it wasn’t that bad. Further, combined with a bomber, a swarm of the planes can augment a small fleet destined to engage the japanese east indies fleet. This was very successful and got the US in the game. By the time it was obvious the allies had won, there were 6 US fighters, 1 ANZAC and 1 UK fighter creating an impenetrable stack in Burma.
#3 - The Hit & Run strategy previously suggested did work. To be more specific, I had a conveyor belt of ships and equipment passing down from San Francisco to the East Indies/Malaya. Basically, I had duplicate fleets in San Fran, Honolulu, Queensland and Java/Malaya. They were all within one move of each other. No fleet was large enough to mentally warrant pulling Japanese ships away from their posts. The fleets effectively supported each other. If japan converged on/attacked either of the two middle fleets, the two nearby fleets could converge on a destroy whatever was left of the japanese engagement. If the JIN attacked the DEI fleet, it would win. But then another US fleet is immediately ready to move in. I tested this once in the DEI . It seemed worth it for Japan to stop the flow of arms, but then the next turn the US was right back there, supported by the planes that were defending the Burma.
The last technique was especially important because it meant that (with duplicate fleets) you could build in San Fran and move the men and equipment down to the DEI in one turn (via the 1move conveyor belt shuffle). This so far seems the only way to get the US into the fight reliably. I see no obvious way for Japan to counter this, with the exception of going after Australia early. However, that seemed fairly risky for me. In my next attempt, I will have Japan go after it very quickly. Once the conveyor belt gets going, it’s overtly risky to engage it.
#3 - The Hit & Run strategy previously suggested did work. To be more specific, I had a conveyor belt of ships and equipment passing down from San Francisco to the East Indies/Malaya. Basically, I had duplicate fleets in San Fran, Honolulu, NSW and Java/Malaya. They were all within one move of each other. No fleet was large enough to mentally warrant pulling Japanese ships away from their posts. The fleets effectively supported each other. If japan converged on/attacked either of the two middle fleets, the two nearby fleets could converge on a destroy whatever was left of the japanese engagement. If the JIN attacked the DEI fleet, it would win. But then another US fleet is immediately ready to move in. I tested this once in the DEI . It seemed worth it for Japan to stop the flow of arms, but then the next turn the US was right back there, supported by the planes that were defending the Burma.
Yep, and this is why I think Japan is on such a tight timetable. Once this type of situation develops, it goes downhill quickly for Japan in my experience. She is just worn down by constant harassment and attacks and eventually can no longer keep the DEI secure. Of course if Japan wins quickly on the mainland, she can divert more resources to the sea and match the US fleet for fleet and win the game in the long run.
I just dont see any advantage at this point for the US to sit back and try and ‘build up’. That just works in Japan’s favor. Ditto for US attacks into Iwo or across the Central Pacific. I think that just does not have the threat poetential of attacking south into the DEI.
Well let me ask this. It’s been my experience that a J1 attack is favorable to Japan, but I havent tried not doing it with this new conveyor belt technique. The increased production helps the US get the ball rolling a lot sooner, and losing the Phillipines doesnt seem to hurt the USA hardly at all. I wonder if maybe I should attack the allies, regardless of the benefits. It takes 3 rounds to wipe out the chinese anyway. Maybe I should wait?
Uncle Joe, what is your take on attacking NSW on J1? You can only get one infantry there, but you do get planes to pretty much guarantee only one defensive roll would occur. I dont think you can get the bombardment hit because of the destroyer sitting there. If that one infantry doesnt defend, then you get the Anzac IPC. That will stop them for two rounds. Even though they will regain control on their turn, they will have no starting IPC. Further, Japan is up by 7 IPC during the round1 collection.
I personally believe that stopping the conveyor belt technique is best done in australia. Get a japanese fleet down that can survive. Then get another fleet over to the DEI at a later time. Or you could control Celebes on J1 to assure the brits dont get it, and then rather than using your Japanese DEI fleet to bombard the UK to assist in the Asian theatre, you create your own conveyor belt, moving eastward to Australia, but going no further.
After all my testing, I find that the allies have only one coordinated plan for victory. A seasoned Japan player will know it. If there is way to counter the belt, that would be pretty bad.
One other thing for the belt technique for the Allies… When the US had a pretty good belt going, I spent 3 turns with Anzac building a loaded carrier to eliminate the need for the US carrier (moving it to DEI for a 2 carrier force). I mistakenly created an Anzac tactical bomber when I should have made two fighters. It’s the one circumstance where I’ve seen a need for a two fighter carrier.
I dont have the map in front of me but if NSW is the territory with the IC, then Japanese air cannot attack it on J1 (that I recall). And going with 1 soldier and no bombardment and no airpower in there seems like a waste.
But yes, I think the best Allied plan at this point is the SanFran to Pearl to Australia to DEI chain. It’s the quickest and easiest way to get to somewhere that Japan cares about. And given what I consider to be the crucial timing in the game, have the US get in to the action quickly is the most important aspect. Even small fleets in that area can give Japan headaches.
As far as Australia, I have yet to see Japan make an effective attack there while the game was still competitive. It’s certainly possible, but the opportunity costs dont seem to be worth it so far. Maybe that will change with more Allied victories?
I think the Japanese ‘counter’ to that Allied strat is to fight in the South Pacific (basing from Truk). Doing that however detracts from the forces available to hit the Brits and Chinese. Somewhere in there will be a balance point between what the two sides are doing. But it is in Japan’s best interest to keep the fight as far from the DEI as possible.
What is “Truk” again?
If you check out the map here, you can see NSW (IC) is in range of the japanese carolines fleet. And you would have the air power from the carolines carrier. So long as you specified the planes for NSW engagement, they would not be locked down to the naval battle with the destroyer. In retrospect however, I think it is better to go down to the DEI with the JIN and establish a belt blockade there (taking Borneo for a J1 assault or Celebes if not), ensuring that you do not divert the fleet for bombardment assistance in the asian assault. In my games, I perform a J1 attack and build a MIC in KwangTung in the 2nd round. From there I usually build mech infantry and the occasional ship. If I instead built more ships and fewer land units to guarantee the prevention of allied DEI control, the US would be very hard pressed to get in there. The eventual goal would be to sack the Queensland US fleet, but never pulling enough ships from DEI to weaken it too much. You have to take into account the us fighters protecting Burma could be temporarily called into service to take out a japanese DEI fleet.
Doing all of this would slow the asian fight, but in my experience the UK cannot push forward without the DEI support. As for the slow number of ground units making their way into asia from the KwangTung MIC, that doesnt really matter a whole lot against the Chinese. The starting forces are always enough to finish them at the end of round three.
Truk was the major Japanese naval base in the Carolines.
And I dont see how even carrier-based planes can attack NSW on J1. It’s 4 spaces away leaving no movement to land back on the CV. Naval bases extend the SHIP movement, but not the air movement. And the airbase doesnt help CV-based planes. No, I think you can only attack NSW with 1 Inf and that is not a good attack IMO.
I’ve had the best success with Japan waiting till J2/J3. J1 can certainly work, but I think it leaves the least margin for error. The US ‘train’ comes bearing down mighty fast with a J1 opening and you better have Asia cleaned up before it arrives. Personally I find that too risky.
But the best way I think to delay the US is to base at Truk and threaten their fleets as they move the Pearl and then to Australia. Yes, you’ll likely lose a lot of units as Japan, but if you can keep the US out for a few turns that might give you enough time to secure the DEI and Asia.
I see. I thought air bases enhanced the sea zone that borders the land they’re on.
I guess I’ll have to test it with J1 and w/o. My poor 1940 edition is receiving a heck of a workout. Btw Uncle Joe, thanks for your input. It’s been real valuable.
My group has found that all the clever ideas for the Allies fail. The Japanese fleet can use the political rules to be in position to launch a devastating attack on T3 against the American fleet. Large air fleets are deployed in Vietnam and Caroline islands. Transports and Carrier are build for additional flexibility.
The Japanese can use their superior starting forces and central position to strike at will. The Japanese have a number of avenues of attack:
1. Smash China
2. Push into India
3. Take the Dutch East Indies (vital for the income flip)
4. Invade Australia
5. Hit the US fleet where ever it is hiding
6. Take San Francisco
7. Take Honolulu
Although Allies can counter some of these, they can’t counter all of them at the same time.
If the CW forces make a maximum effort in the DEI, the Japanese can hit their weakened home areas. If they don’t make a maximum effort in the DEI, the Japanese can swiftly take them from the CW, leaving the UK with little income with the eventual fall of Asia.
If the US tries saving money or dispatching aircraft to the SW Pacific, the Japanese can hit San Francisco. If the US defends San Francisco, the Japanese aircraft in the Carolines can be used to support an attack on Australia.
If the Allies save the US fleet by moving it to New Zealand (and combining it with CW forces), the Japanese take the DEI and threaten San Francisco and Australia.
If the each Allied power launches a separate local attack, the Japanese can defeat them in detail.
J1, buy minor IC only, take Phillipenes and Kwangtung. J2, buy major IC for Kwangtung and 3 tanks for IC you built in Kiangsu all the while moving your J fleet south for the DEI and India attack. Let the US, Anzac and British fleets merge around Australia which should happen if the allies want to keep them alive. By round 4/5 you can see the end coming for the allies. And always keep at least one destroyer and some planes in Japan to counter any amphibious assault on Japan or Korea that the the US might think about. 7 games so far and all Japan wins. Japan always attacks on round one taking 5NO IPC’s from each US and Britain.
I haven’t been challenged by a FULL OUT conveyor system yet, something similar of course because that is all the US can really do anyway but none of the games have been close.
I am actually pretty dissappointed with the game and lack of play testing. If any of the play testers can tell us what they were thinking maybe it will help the Allies……but I doubt it.
Let the US, Anzac and British fleets merge around Australia which should happen if the allies want to keep them alive.
That is a major mistake for the Allies IMO. Even together, all they can do is defend and that accomplishes nothing. I think the Allies need to spread out and take advantage of their turn structure, not group up where they can’t act.
In a group they have a huge defensive advantage and can still attack independently but in a combined effort. They have a bit more control that way, not that it helps at all.
