Bad Moves?

The way I interpret Uncle Joe’s hit and run strat is not necessarily sending random transports or subs all around the map to annoy or spread out the japanese fleet. One or two ships or men in several locations performing uncoordinated attacks or dumps isn’t going to soak up enough jap IPCs to turn the tide, not in my experience (since ties effectively go to the defender).

Instead, I am creating noteworthy (but not large) resources banks in a line across the Pacific. Each fleet itself is not big enough to commit a significance japanese offensive against it, especially when you consider there are two noteworthy resources on either side of that seemingly defenseless target that can both converge in one move to finish any remaining ships in the japanese offensive. Once this line is created, you have a solid foundation for building resources in San Fran that immediately appear on the other side of the map (through the conveyor belt shuffle). Before the belt is created though, you are sending 1 transport at a time (the first with 2 infantry and the rest with 1 inf and 1 tank) down into certain destruction. Yes, the men will land where you wanted them, but the transport is dead. It seems desperate and foolishly risky to do this just to offload a couple of men, but man it adds up quickly while not appearing to the japanese to be a big problem.

I think Uncle Joe’s strategy is the closest I’ve seen to those that have typically won a game for the Allies.

Though isn’t it also fair to say that alot of the success of that strategy of employing so-called “bad” moves against the Japanese presupposes a Japanese player that is willing to bite?  If you have a focused Japanese player gunning for the objectives he needs to win, wouldnt it seem that an effective counter would be to just ignore the nusiance bad moves, however tempting they may be, and simply carry on, full steam, with whatever overall strategy they plan to use?

I guess my only point is - while I agree with what Uncle Joe says and have seen similar strategies work for the Allies - I can also see how a focused Japanese player can avoid the pitfall of over extending himself by simply not responding to an Allied strategy of “bad moves.”

It takes a certain kind of Japanese player to really fall into the trap of responding to every Allied incursion - and Im just not certain you’ll always get that player.  Its a calculated risk I suppose.

But like so many “strategies” for this game, it really does depend on the game at hand.

FWIW, I consider Infantry/Tank sort of overkill. Infantry/Art is more economical for similar punch. For tanks you are paying for the mobility which will rarely be used in the Pacific (unless you land in FIC or something). An Infantry/Tank combo attacks at ‘4’ total and takes 2 hits for 9 IPCs. Inf/Art also attacks at ‘4’, but only costs 7 IPCs. Granted you are a little more fragile with the Inf/Art but I think that is worth the ~30% cost break.

Though isn’t it also fair to say that alot of the success of that strategy of employing so-called “bad” moves against the Japanese presupposes a Japanese player that is willing to bite?  If you have a focused Japanese player gunning for the objectives he needs to win, wouldnt it seem that an effective counter would be to just ignore the nusiance bad moves, however tempting they may be, and simply carry on, full steam, with whatever overall strategy they plan to use?

I guess my only point is - while I agree with what Uncle Joe says and have seen similar strategies work for the Allies - I can also see how a focused Japanese player can avoid the pitfall of over extending himself by simply not responding to an Allied strategy of “bad moves.”

It takes a certain kind of Japanese player to really fall into the trap of responding to every Allied incursion - and Im just not certain you’ll always get that player.  Its a calculated risk I suppose.

But like so many “strategies” for this game, it really does depend on the game at hand.

Yes and no. The goal is to present the Japanese player with two unpalatable options. You aren’t necessarily relying on them to make ‘mistakes’ or to ‘bite on’ a trap for this to work. Either of those certainly helps, but the main idea is to spread them out OR force them to have a weaker econ and less stable front via incursions onto critical areas.

Obviously if both (or all) players are playing ‘perfect’ games without mistakes then the results can and should be determined by the dice…there is nothing else to do it. But I find it hard to imagine playing a ‘mistake-free’ TURN let alone GAME of A&AP40. And a mistake doesn’t have to be an ‘oops, that was dumb’, it could be more in the form of not sending quite enough into battle ‘x’ to get the job done properly or on the opposite spectrum, perhaps a ‘mistake’ might take the form of overcommiting to a battle and being out of position on a future turn.

But in any case if you present a LOT of different targets and intrusions, you greatly magnify the potential for the enemy to deploy incorrectly. For my part, I tend to err on the side of caution (sometimes to a fault) since I refuse to rely on ‘luck’ or on ‘decent odds’. I want to ensure I win my battles and often have to send along a little more than SHOULD be necessary. I’ve seen too many games lost due to a single critical battle where the attacker skimps to stretch elsewhere and it comes back to bite them in the end.

@Uncle_Joe:

FWIW, I consider Infantry/Tank sort of overkill. Infantry/Art is more economical for similar punch. For tanks you are paying for the mobility which will rarely be used in the Pacific (unless you land in FIC or something). An Infantry/Tank combo attacks at ‘4’ total and takes 2 hits for 9 IPCs. Inf/Art also attacks at ‘4’, but only costs 7 IPCs. Granted you are a little more fragile with the Inf/Art but I think that is worth the ~30% cost break.

I’d say I do mostly inf/tank attack and pepper in inf/inf to mainly hold defensively. But the tanks are also meant to hold defense, like in Malaya. And of course a tank/inf defends a better than an art/inf. Once you get 3 tanks and inf in Malaya, you can push forward after the UK softens them up a bit. And then I do use the mobility to start depriving Japan of IPCs, sometimes even bringing the chinese back into the game. Yes, they can probably only purchase one man, but he may be hard to get to with jap forces sandwiched at the UK front.

And for everyone else, the “bad” moves are not bad. I dont know how that term got started. They’re merely risky. And they’re really only risky in that you’re losing your transport. The men and equipment will reach their destination. And bear in mind the strategy as a whole is not random. It’s coordinated chaos designed to provide a lot of allied flexibility.

@Xayd74:

Instead, I am creating noteworthy (but not large) resources banks in a line across the Pacific. Each fleet itself is not big enough to commit a significance japanese offensive against it, especially when you consider there are two noteworthy resources on either side of that seemingly defenseless target that can both converge in one move to finish any remaining ships in the japanese offensive. Once this line is created, you have a solid foundation for building resources in San Fran that immediately appear on the other side of the map (through the conveyor belt shuffle). Before the belt is created though, you are sending 1 transport at a time (the first with 2 infantry and the rest with 1 inf and 1 tank) down into certain destruction. Yes, the men will land where you wanted them, but the transport is dead. It seems desperate and foolishly risky to do this just to offload a couple of men, but man it adds up quickly while not appearing to the japanese to be a big problem.

How many turns is it taking you to establish this?  And does it depend on the UK and ANZAC fleets forming one such “resource bank”?  From what I’ve seen so far (which is admittedly limited), the Allies are put on their heels relatively quickly in this game and depending on the sizes of these “resource banks” that you’re creating, what is preventing the Japanese from hitting you at your flank and rolling the entire line?  Is this belt simply a SF to Queensland line, or are you extending it farther?

@Uncle_Joe:

Yes and no. The goal is to present the Japanese player with two unpalatable options. You aren’t necessarily relying on them to make ‘mistakes’ or to ‘bite on’ a trap for this to work. Either of those certainly helps, but the main idea is to spread them out OR force them to have a weaker econ and less stable front via incursions onto critical areas.

Obviously if both (or all) players are playing ‘perfect’ games without mistakes then the results can and should be determined by the dice…there is nothing else to do it. But I find it hard to imagine playing a ‘mistake-free’ TURN let alone GAME of A&AP40. And a mistake doesn’t have to be an ‘oops, that was dumb’, it could be more in the form of not sending quite enough into battle ‘x’ to get the job done properly or on the opposite spectrum, perhaps a ‘mistake’ might take the form of overcommiting to a battle and being out of position on a future turn.

But in any case if you present a LOT of different targets and intrusions, you greatly magnify the potential for the enemy to deploy incorrectly. For my part, I tend to err on the side of caution (sometimes to a fault) since I refuse to rely on ‘luck’ or on ‘decent odds’. I want to ensure I win my battles and often have to send along a little more than SHOULD be necessary. I’ve seen too many games lost due to a single critical battle where the attacker skimps to stretch elsewhere and it comes back to bite them in the end.

I see.  That makes sense to me and I certainly agree with you in principle.  I suppose the devil lies in the details of the execution of that strategy, particularly in identifying those “critical areas” which if pressured, would more likely than not force a Japanese reaction.  I can see how those would change game to game - and certainly turn to turn.

I also couldnt agree with you more on the effects of errors in executing turns.  There is so much room for miscalculation in force allocation in this game, particulary I think for Japan, that its very difficult to really espouse a winning strategy in specific terms for this game.  One example that immediately comes to mind is determining which casualties to take as an attacking fleet.  Do you err on killing TACs so that you have room for more FTRs for defense to a counter attack, or vice versa for a later planned offensive strike.  Just one small example.

Of course, another pitfall of this general strategy is to simply launch too many of such incursions, or launch them in strengths that either dissuade a reaction, or leave you open to the loss of too much capital.  Finding that balance, along with picking the right “critical areas” to hit, are very difficult things to gauge in a generalized way.

@gtg21:

How many turns is it taking you to establish this?  And does it depend on the UK and ANZAC fleets forming one such “resource bank”?   From what I’ve seen so far (which is admittedly limited), the Allies are put on their heels relatively quickly in this game and depending on the sizes of these “resource banks” that you’re creating, what is preventing the Japanese from hitting you at your flank and rolling the entire line?  Is this belt simply a SF to Queensland line, or are you extending it farther?

The goal for the conveyor belt is to have one loaded carrier with support ships in each of 4 locations.

• On the first turn, I move the San Fran carrier down to Hawaii, replacing it with a carrier purchase that is immediately loaded up with existing planes on WUS. I also take the tactical off of Hawaii (and move it onto WUS for later seating on a 3rd carrier). The WUS BS, DD and sub are moved down to hawaii. I also grab the phillipines and hawaii bombers and put them in australia (and put the WUS bomber in hawaii to later join them). I grab the phillipines fighter and place it in Malaya or Shan state. I also grab the two men on Hawaii and take them down to Queensland (and inf/tank on WUS and move them down to hawaii) to get the arms supply moving as fast as possible.
• On turn two, I build another AC and fighter (to couple with that hawaii tactical), a transport and a tank (to couple with one of the infantry on WUS) another fighter for the UK, and whatever ships I can turn out with focus on subs and DDs. This assumes a J1 attack. If not, I will likely turn out a fighter for the UK and a destroyer. No transport this round. Malayan fighter moves to Burma and Queensland fighter moves to Sumatra (which the UK occupied on round 1). All three bombers converge on South Australia or Northern Territory for eventual use in the assault on the JIN in DEI, and as a general deterrent. The J1 afforded WUS fighter moves to hawaii. At this time, there should be one DEI island available for US incursian (borneo or celebes). I take whichever with those two original hawaiian infantry.
• On turn three, the hawaiian DD and sub are moved downed to queensland, replaced in Hawaii by the WUS DD (or sub and DD if a J1 attack afforded me the IPC.) At this point, I have three noteworthy fleets, the weakest of which is in WUS. The java fighter also moves to Burma for additional support.

Now that’s three rounds to get a solid foundation set up. By this time the chinese are all dead, and there is Japanese focus on the UK. The UK has moved it’s two most valuable ships to Queensland to help secure that point in the belt. Japan spent two turns gaining control of the phillipines, which it turned out I didnt need. There is steady stream of US fighters coming in to support burma (and one from anzac whenever they can spare it). The general focus is to get one fighter every round into burma (until I have 5 there) and one transport one inf and whatever chugging its way along the belt to shore defenses or do whatever. By round 4, I’m starting to mass the Queensland fleet for it’s eventual bomber assisted assault on the JIN in DEI. It’s hard to say how many ships you’ll need, but Japan has to go first giving you a good idea of when you think you’re ready.

It may appear as though I’ve thinned the WUS defenses too much, but it takes 2 rounds for the japs to get there from Japan. On that same round, I can turn all production towards more ships and/or move ships back from Hawaii. Too thin at Hawaii you think? It could get taken almost for sure. But that jap fleet is destroyed that same round when the WUS and Queenslands fleet converge on Hawaii. And then Japan has no fleet at all and has to pull its remaining ships from the south seas. I would pray they would be that stupid.

All of this assumes you have a seasoned Japan player who knows how to defend his keep, where the valuable territory is, and how to level china fast. If he’s not so seasoned, chances are that a good deal of this wasnt necessary. In my most recent test, the only ally ever on its heels was China. The UK is boxed in, but that’s where the wanna be. There is no reason not to put the UK ships in queensland. They’ll just be destroyed by the JIN, costing the JIN next to nothing because of oblative hits.

And for everyone else, the “bad” moves are not bad. I dont know how that term got started. They’re merely risky. And they’re really only risky in that you’re losing your transport. The men and equipment will reach their destination. And bear in mind the strategy as a whole is not random. It’s coordinated chaos designed to provide a lot of allied flexibility.

I originally referred to them as ‘bad moves’ in my post. That came from a few early games where we had multiple players on the Allied side. When it was the Brit and Anzac turn, they’d often do something ineffective and when I asked them why they weren’t being more aggressive they’d reply “I can’t see any good moves to make…Japan can just squash me” to which I replied “fine, then make some bad moves and together we’ll add it all up to be a good move for us as a whole”. That spurred them into action and we started to see this strategy take shape. And again, it’s not a ‘strategy’ in terms of planning on hitting ‘x’ objective with ‘y’ forces. Instead, it’s more of a mindset that the Allies have to adopt in that some times various Allies have to ‘take one for the team’ in order to allow the other Allies to succeed.

The goal for the conveyor belt is to have one loaded carrier with support ships in each of 4 locations.

Carriers are nice, but not even required for this strategy to succeed. In fact, in some ways I think the US is better off with more light forces and yes, even some CAs. As I posted elsewhere, a pretty good US ‘standard’ build is 2 DDs, 2 SSs, 1 CA, 1 TRs, 1 Inf, 1 Art for 54 IPCs. This gives good flexibility for attack, defense, and island raiding as well as potential to hit convoys and act as blockers.

Cost for cost:
1 CV + 1 Tac + 1 Fighter = 37 IPCs for 4 hits, 7 attack points, and 9 defense points. But note that you cant even use the CV to soak up hits unless you have friendly base nearby (which is not always possible when ‘raiding’).

For 3 IPCs more you can have the 2 DDs,  2 SS, 1 CA for 5 hits, 11 attack points, and 9 defense points. You also have 1 shelling option to support invasions and far more convoy hitting potential as scattering ability. The downside is that you lose some of the flexibility of playing games with LBA basing and you are restricted to naval bases to retain a 3 space strike range.

That is not to say that CVs dont have their role, but honestly I like having the ships for sea threat and the planes available for LBA duty.

The idea behind the CAs is that they offer the ability to magnify the strength of invasion forces. If Japan has 2 Inf garrisoning an island, they can feel pretty comfortable about holding out against a single Allied TR attack (either a 3/1 or a 2/2). Japan has odds in that battle and as the Allies, you are relying on luck to succeed (a long-term plan for failure IMO). But if there is a CA or two floating around, that threat potential goes up. NOW a 2 unit garrison is NOT sufficient in most cases. Yes, the Japanese COULD get lucky and hit twice and prevent the invasion but that is about an 11% shot…not something I want to rely on. In addition, the CAs just add to the headache because they run decent odds of hitting attacking units (50% more effective than DDs). So if a CA-led invasion hits an extra enemy defender and draws a heavier resposne from the counter-attacking forces then it’s more han made up it’s +4 IPC cost over a DD IMO.

Again, it’s all about escalating threat against Japan. The more places Japan is threatened, the more places she has to spread out to defend or suffer the consequences. A few CAs simply increase that threat at a relatively cheap cost.

Thats a very interesting concept employing the CAs.  Ive read alot of posts on here seriously questioning (or openly bashing) the usefulness of CAs in this game.  The general sentiment has seemed to be load up on DDs and CVs and overwhelm the Japanese.

Ive always disagreed, though never taken the time to bother to counter post or elaborate an alternative.  Your post does a great job of explaining their value when integrated into a overarching strategy that maximizes their use.  Hat tip sir!

I posted the original question on CAs. ;) Up to that point, I had never found them useful. But as a shelling option in low-intensity fighting they seem to be OK.

@Xayd74 (apologies - not going to quote your last post responding to my questions - would take up too much space!)

I see your points, and think that it seems pretty sound.  I just cant help but be a little skeptical of too strong a reliance on one form of strategy.  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the conveyor system from WUS to Australia is critical, particularly if that region is going to be the emphasis of the game.  And I see your point about HI and WUS being weak - but ultimately secure.

I just wonder what the effect is if the system is stalled in Queensland by a Japanese player that has done more than just box in the UK, but essentially obliterated it and taken India.  Seems the Japanese player can then concentrate his force out the DEI or the Philippines and begin a concentrated effort of rolling you back (assuming you’ve attempted to expand into DEI).

I like that it accounts for various Japanese starting round attacks.  But is it fair to say that this strategy contemplates a KIF strategy by the Japanese player?   And not a KAF one?

But I see the flexibility the approach has, particularly in shifting north through the Carolines and perhaps bringing the battle to the central Pacific, in effect incorporating some of the elements Uncle Joe has discussed.

These approaches seem pretty sound.  I wonder if people claiming the game is out of balance (in favor of Japan) have ever really encountered something like this.

attacking mongolia
might be the worst move in the game :D
no profit

@gtg21:

I see your points, and think that it seems pretty sound.  I just cant help but be a little skeptical of too strong a reliance on one form of strategy.  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the conveyor system from WUS to Australia is critical, particularly if that region is going to be the emphasis of the game.  And I see your point about HI and WUS being weak - but ultimately secure.

I also dont care for a single victory strategy for the Allies, but it’s all I’ve found so far. And I’m now working out a nonJ1 technique to stall the US production line for as long as possible. There doesnt seem to be any way to stop once it gets rolling.

@gtg21:

I just wonder what the effect is if the system is stalled in Queensland by a Japanese player that has done more than just box in the UK, but essentially obliterated it and taken India.  Seems the Japanese player can then concentrate his force out the DEI or the Philippines and begin a concentrated effort of rolling you back (assuming you’ve attempted to expand into DEI).

So far with my conveyor strategy, India and Burma have never fallen. If India is taken, I would say the game is over regardless of what is going on elsewhere in the world. Much like Russia in 1984 and Revised, the whole game pivots on keeping the country that has land position in the primary theatre alive. If they fall, then everything crumbles.

@gtg21:

These approaches seem pretty sound.  I wonder if people claiming the game is out of balance (in favor of Japan) have ever really encountered something like this.

I was one of those thinking it was horribly out of balance, but I was making mistakes and playing old school. At this point, I’ve put a lot of time into it, enough to realize it’s actually ridiculously well balanced. At the end of each side’s turn every round, it looks like they’re gonna win. I havent experienced that very much in prior A&A games. It’s like watching the superbowl and knowing in the first 10 minutes who’s going to win. Lame! I want it to be a head race all the way to a photo finish. This game, with all it’s complexity, does that. I really have to tip my hat to Larry.

@Xayd74:

I also grab the phillipines and hawaii bombers and put them in australia (and put the WUS bomber in hawaii to later join them). I grab the phillipines fighter and place it in Malaya or Shan state. I also grab the two men on Hawaii and take them down to Queensland (and inf/tank on WUS and move them down to hawaii) to get the arms supply moving as fast as possible.

This is actually an illegal move.  According to the political rules, it is illegal for the US to put its units in a UK or ANZAC owned territory until the US is at war.

Right you are. I just caught that distinction today. Overall though, it shouldn’t matter. The bombers dont come into play for me until the assault on the DEI JIN. That’s several turns down the road. Nevertheless, I’ll make sure to factor that in the next time.

I think it’s an impractical move. I dont see how it can be done early enough without accepting a horrible trade ratio of forces. Japan can stall this strategy by picketing with DDs and if she has planes anywhere near the coast, all of them can arrive in Japan at moment’s notice to benefit from the scramble rules. Can you force the Japanese to redeploy a portion of their fleet and air force? Sure, but to what gain? Even half to 2/3 of the starting force (augmented by builds) can stand off the US fleet with little issue. And the remaining portion is still more than enough to seal off the Brits and take the DEI.

Now MAYBE if you’ve already whittled down the Japanese fleet a bit and you have some sort of southern force as well, this could be used to draw the Japanese and allow a counter-attack in the DEI to succeed. But as a general strategy? No, I dont think it fulfills the role of pressuring Japan since it threatens no longer-term effect.

Two buddies and I have played about a dozen games, and it seems to get easier and easier to contain Japan. First, you don’t have to control all of the DEI, you just need to prevent Japan from controlling them. With all of Asia under control (except India), the Phillipines, and three out of the four DEI islands Japan is only at an economy of 61. Not much better then the US, except they have to buy alot more ground forces and likely more transports. While the US is devoting themselves almost soley to air and navy, and has two to three minor allies that add to Japans troubles.

We usually find the Japanese fleet operating in the south, and so with no real threat to Hawaii the US fleet will base itself in Australia (frequently the Aussies will build an airfield in the Northern Territories) and move air units down there as well waiting for the Japanese to split up or pick off transports. If Japan doesn’t opt for a J1 attack the Brits can land four infantry, four fighters and a tac bomber on Java, the Anzacs can augment this with four more fighters. This presents a threat to all the other DEI islands, plus the threat of massing US units in the area. If Japan does manage to gather enough units to threaten java the air units can just rebase to India or Australia. We’ve had Japan counter by landing fighters in the Phillipines, but then you no longer have a mass of fighters guarding the homeland, so US builds moving thru Hawaii are routinely a threat. Both sides use blocking destroyers, but, both sides usually go out of their way to kill these too.

All too many times we find the Japanese presented with a choice of assaulting multiple targets, but, if Japan does they’ll have to either sacrifice their transports or split their fleet and face an allied counterattack. Meanwhile India is just digging in and fighters from the US and Anzac are only a turn away from defending Calcutta. Japan got an advantage in our early games, but, the allies have been on a roll as of late, giving them a slight edge on games won. I don’t think Japan has to do anything wrong for the allies to win, I just think that unless Japan can gain control of all the DEI (and thus gain their NO bonus) and hold it, they are pretty much on a timer until they’re whittled down by the allies.