Bad Moves?

we’ve played 2 dozen or so games (time off now for BF2 Beta) but I don’t see any difference in our games to yours.  Apparently you have to have a moron playing as Japan for the US to have a shot in this game.  But I’ll let them tell you why I’m wrong. :)

I actually agree with most of what you say including the fact that I think Japan holds the edge, particularly amongst inexperienced players. I dont see any way for the game to take 20-25 turns between experienced players (unless maaaaybe fighting out to the bitter end when the game has long since been ‘over’). And yes, if you have the DEI and have taken out the Brits and Chinese and the US isnt in position to take the DEI back THAT turn, the game is over IMO.

Also, FWIW, I’m the person advocating what LOOK to be bad moves individually, but taken together add up to good moves the Allies as whole. Unfortunately it’s tough to articulate specifics since it’s going to be different from game to game. But in general, what I mean is that you can leave a few ships exposed here and there or make a few invasions or leave a few planes exposed in places etc because in all likelihood SOME (or most depending) of them will survive and annoy the Japanese or else the Japanese are spreading out thinner to take care of all of the threats. This in turn leaves Japan open to counter-attacks, or losing battles, or even simply risking higher casualties by not having massive overkill.

For example, suppose it’s the Brit turn and they have a few ships and a TR and a few planes. They can send those ships and TR to snipe off a stray Japanese ship (a blocker usually) and still send the TR to land somewhere in the DEI or behind the Japanese in Asia etc. They can send the plane(s) to reinforce Malaya or a previously held island etc (or somewhere you know the Japanese want, but need TRs to get to). Looking at it solely from the BRIT view, these are ALL ‘bad moves’ since they can easily be countered by Japan. But then it’s the ANZAC turn. And they can move a sub into a sea zone to raid 2 IPCs and they can move a DD and a TR to a different island and they can move another TR and DD into position to be able to hit the PI or another DEI zone the following turn. They also might have a plane or two to throw on the Brit island they just took. Again, in isolation, these are all ‘bad moves’. The Japanese can take any of them out fairly easily. But now it is the US turn. The US moves a fleet down to Australia and has another one moved to Pearl, and has a few ships already in Australia that can reach another island of the DEI (or FIC). They can again move and take an island or reinforce one. Or they can take one of Japan’s starting outposts. Or maybe they can put some planes on Wake (if the Japanese havent had time to occupy yet). Once again, to solely the US player, these all look like more ‘bad moves’.

Now turn the table around and look from Japan’s view. One or two of the DEI are re-occupied (one possibly with a plane or two). The US is at Wake, is threatening to invade the DEI again next turn or converge and hit Truk, the ANZACS have a sub and DD in irritating places and the Brits have made a hardpoint at Malaya (or wherever) that will take more than just a single TR + some aircover to smack down. That is a lot of dispersed threats to have to deal with and Japan will likely not have the capacity to kill them all without leaving themselves vulnerable the NEXT turn (which starts the cycle again). Japan has a lot of ground to cover and not a lot of TR and ground troops to do it. Sure they can build both, but they will eventually run out of naval assets in sufficient quantity to cover all the vital areas. This is made worse because any BB or CV that takes damage has to retire for a turn to heal. Also, if the Japanese are moving assets into the DEI and as blockers to prevent the next turn’s annoyance, they are limiting their mobility to respond to future threats by not being at a friendly naval base. This opens up areas at the fringes where Japan can’t effectively respond to the next wave of threats. Usually the Brits are good for only 1-2 turns of this unless they manage to hold onto some income (unlikely IME). But by that point the US and ANZACs can often pick up the slack.

Obviously all of the above is not going to be possible every game. But the theory is always the same - give Japan more threats to deal with than she has assets. This leaves two basic choices: respond en masse to a few of them and suffer the consequences of the others or spread out to deal with multiple threats but be in a weaker position to respond to future moves as well as being more vulnerable to damage in each battle and to enemy counter-attacks. Will it work every game? Of course not. If it did, it would be an imbalanced game in favor of the Allies. But I think the above provides a workable foundation for Allied strategy.

My sense of it that each succeeding edition of A&A since the original has been designed to push the players to play more ‘historically’ than prior versions. And without hard and fast rules to demand such, the designer(s) have used geography and economic goals to encourage it. In this case, the zone connections CLEARLY encourage the Allies to fight across the southern part of the map (as they historically did). And this in turn encourages Japan to expand south to meet or pre-empt that threat (again, which is what she historically attempted). That is not to say to that there are not other alternatives, but the ‘push’ to have the players fight in the South Pacific is pretty clear. So IMO it makes sense to use the historical Allied strategy of early raids followed by a steady march across the South Pacific as a starting point for their early moves.

Good article Uncle_Joe, I agree with what you said! Japan may seem overpowered at the start. But she can’t do everything perfectly. Japan could probably wipe out China off the map in its first turn. But how many planes are you going to lose?

Japan can even block indefinitely USA. But how much can she do against the 3 other allies? Etc etc. This game so far offers great gameplay. Too bad there aren’t enough pieces -.-

Robert

my opinion: the allies need little guerrilla attack on the island japan leave undefended.

this have 2 vantages

first of all, spread the japan naval forces making easy to attack em .

second the japan cannot hold all the front for all the rounds so let’s annoy the japan on each island with anzac don’t worry in lost transport use it unscorted just let the infantry on island  and let the japan cunterattack you wasting precious resources.

I think the bad moves are thoose kind of action in a normal game you will not send an unscorted transport.

Wait the americans…. that’s all :)

@Panz3r:

second the japan cannot hold all the front for all the rounds so let’s annoy the japan on each island with anzac don’t worry in lost transport use it unscorted just let the infantry on island  and let the japan cunterattack you wasting precious resources.

I think the bad moves are thoose kind of action in a normal game you will not send an unscorted transport.

I think the worst move of all is to be unwilling to sacrifice planes and ships and to stick to the logic of the previous games of “all of nothing”, i.e. waiting to build massive fleets before going after your opponent.

@McMan:

After reading up the forums, I have yet another round of questions about obtaining and Allied victory. Having only played three games, these are only my thoughts, but any input would be helpful. First, although the majority now feel that the game is balanced, I find it hard to imagine Japan’s downfall. The causes for this: Japan’s airforce, 10,000 planes strong, and the DEI. The DEI appear to me to be “swing territories.” They contain enough IPC’s either to give Japan almost a production advantage over the US, or to give the UK enough IPC’s to resist Japan. Either way, a quick victory for one side or the other is assured. However, with Japan’s airforce and massive fleet, they can take and hold the DEI fairly easily. Unless the Jap player is some kind of idiot, China and Britain will be smashed quickly, leaving Japan with only one victory city to go while outproducing the US and ANZAC. Some players have said that to defeat Japan, the Allies need to make what appear to be “bad moves” in order to spread Japan out. What does this kind of strategy look like? Also, what’s this talk of games being 20-25 turns long? My games usually last no more than 5… will that begin to change as my friends and I get more experienced?

• Is your UK player buying at least one additional antiaircraft to cover burma?

• Is he moving his BS and Cruiser to augment the Queensland SZ defense? (those UK ships just get destroyed otherwise while JIN just takes repairable hits)

• Is he using his two transports to populate the two nearby DEI islands immediately? (yes, he loses them, but he doesnt need them after that)

• Is your US player purchasing planes and relocating some of the existing ones to stack in Burma?

• Is he stacking bombers in Australia to augment a fleet engagement in the DEI?

• Is your ANZAC player stashing planes in DEI territories?

• Is he sacking the occasional transport to dump men and equipment in Malaya or the DEI?

Just last night, I ran another simulation using the conveyer belt technique (similar to Uncle Joe’s risky moves technique) (I have this detailed out in my “2 Ideas for the Allies” thread), but this time with Japan not only being aware of it, but actively attempting to prevent it by stationing a growing fleet (that started out large btw) in Borneo. If this is the only Allied path to Victory, a seasoned japan player should know what to do. I never moved or split the Borneo fleet to chase down stray ships (except for planes popping transports).

The idea here was not to gain control of the DEI, but to prevent the Allies from having it. Moving the Japanese DEI fleet around for various reasons kept losing it the DEI in prior simulations. The jap KwangTung MIC was creating ships and MI for the DEI and asian attack fronts. Diverting so many IPCs to the Borneo fleet to lessen the damage from the eventual attack from the Queensland US fleet actually didnt hurt me that much in the asian attacks, but it WAS noticeable. I even stationed 12 jap planes in FIC to finish any remaining US ships that survived an attack on Borneo.

BUT, here’s what happened… The US fleet destroyed the very sizable JIN in Borneo (with the help of 3 bombers they had stashed in australia). They had one BS and AC left (each with one point of dmg) and the AC had its two planes. The UK (on it’s turn) moved the BS and Cruiser in to support the remaining ships, and ANZAC moved in its destroyer as well. The 12 FIC japanese planes still attacked on the next turn, destroying the Allied Borneo fleet, but losing 5 planes in doing so. That japs then moved down the existing fleet from Kwangtung to attempt to re-establish control of the DEI.

However at this point, The UK had 14 infantry, 10 fighters and 2 tackies (6 of those fighters belonged to US and ANZAC) in Burma. They were dug in and Japan wasn’t going to get them out before the US recaptured the DEI permanently. Because there was an antiaircraft in Burma, Japan was losing planes attacking it initially, and wasnt willing to risk its planes any longer (after so many fighters had been amassed to protect it). At that point, japan went with a mix of tank and MI, which worked well, but it just want enough because the frakkin US had sent so many planes to defend Burma. At this point, the game was over because of the superior IPC production of the allies. So what did I learn from this?

• It is not immediately evident to me how to prevent the US conveyor belt from smashing into the DEI, even when I committed perhaps too many resources into preventing it!
• The Allies do not need control of the DEI to win the game. They just have to make sure Japan doesnt have it.
• Australia is critical to the allied arms supply war effort. Subsequently, the phillipines and carolines were kind of irrelevant.
• Japan should not waste time taking over Mongolia. The moment the chinese are gone, redirect 5 men and the 4 bombers to capture it quickly.
• Keep the Japanese Borneo fleet where it is, and build an airbase there. Then put at least 2 fighters and 2 tackies on the island for scramble defense (to offset US bombers engaging the Borneo fleet from australia during a US push into the DEI) and attack availability. These planes were doing much anymore anyway. The japs tanks had taken over by then for the assault on the UK.
• I’m thinking about having Japan move down it’s Manchurian antiaircraft down to Yunnan to offset UK plane based pushes into that province.
• Maybe I shouldn’t be doing my beloved J1 attack. The IPC numbers seem almost the same to me (taking over all those valuable spots right away), so I really dont want to not do it. But the Allied combined IPC production has become a real nuissance!

I agree with McMan, I’d like to see some of these winning Allied strategies that don’t hinge on rules misinterpretation or noobish Japanese execution.

Uncle Joe is on the right track. Forcing Japan to respond to “bad moves” also causes them to dilute their forces to deal with those situations and delay and prevent them from concentrating their forces to quickly and easily seize objectives.

So far, though, these delays haven’t cost Japan any games, but it sure does make things more interesting.

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.