This weeks game was very interesting and different from how most of the games have been going. The Japan player focused on taking Western U.S. instead of India.
Here is how it played out:
J1:
Purchase:
3 Transports
Combat Moves:
I’m not going to detail what happened in and around Asia. Basically it was pretty standard. Yunnan, Kwangtung were capped. The U.K. ships in S.Z. 37 were sunk, and the Philippines was attacked by Caroline Fleet but not capped due to horrible dice rolls by Japan player. U.S. Transport in S.Z. 26 was sunk by a Submarine.
1 Inf/1 Transport -> British Columbia
2 Inf/ 1 Transport -> Alaska
Noncombat Moves:
Japan Fleet -> S.Z. 1
1 Destroyer -> S.Z. 9
2 Fighters, 1 Tac (I think) Manchuria -> Japan
U.S. 1:
Purchase:
1 Fighter
2 Infantry
Combat Moves:
None
Noncombat Moves:
Planes in Hawaiian Isles -> Western U.S.
Planes on Carrier -> Western U.S.
Anzac 1:
Purchase:
1 Fighter
Noncombat:
4 fighters -> Hawaiian Isles
J2:
Purchase:
Naval Base, Air Strip, Minor Complex (Japan player said this was a waste, and will be tweaked)
Combat Moves:
Japan Fleet S.Z. 1 (+ 2 Tac, 2 Fighters from Japan; Landing on Carriers)-> S.Z. 10 (2 Transports stayed in S.Z. 1). U.S. player didn’t scramble. The U.S. fleet was wiped out. In hind sight the fleet should have moved, but I don’t think it would have made a difference either way.
Philippines Falls.
Noncombat Moves:
5 Fighters, 3 Tac, 2 Bombers, + 2 Fighters 2 Tac originally on carriers -> Alaska
3 Transports /w AA Gun, 1 Tank, 4 Inf -> Alaska
2 Bombers from Asia -> Japan
Unit Mobilization:
Minor Complex, Airbase, Naval Base all placed in Alaska. (Not really needed/Never used).
U.S. 2:
Purchase:
5 Fighters
2 Inf
No Combat/Noncombat moves. Not many options at this point. Considered trading British Columbia.
Anzac 2:
4 Fighters -> Western U.S.
J3:
Combat Moves:
Amphibious Assault on Western U.S.:
1 Battleship Bombardment
1 Cruiser Bombardment
4 Bombers, 11 Fighters, 7 Tac (Maybe 8?), 1 Tank, 7 inf
AA Gun Kills: 1 Bomber, 1 Tac, 1 Fighter
U.S. defends with:
13 fighters total (9 U.S., 4 ANZAC), 3 tacs, 2 Bombers, 1 Tank, 1 Mech, 1 Art, 7 Inf.
Japan caps Western U.S. with 1 Tank, 1 Bomber remaining. On turn 3. Both sides had “average” dice rolls.
Allies concede. Chine and U.K. were in “good” shape in Asia, but felt it was inevitable.
This left the Allies scratching their heads, wondering what they could have done better.
Obviously purchases is the first questionable thing.
Also the decision to not scramble came into question but seemed futile at the time. The Japanese navy had a good amount of fodder.
Thoughts/Feedback?
This was written from memory so their might be some minor discrepancies.
Edit: I’m not suggesting this is a 100% win for Japan by any means. It is risky, and the dice are a major factor. I’m interested in how to deal with this strat better.
I really should not respond to these threads. Try it out in a forum game, I promise you it will not work. US should have bought 5 infantry turn 1 and 5 infantry, 4 fighters and a tank on turn 2. US fighters cannot scramble over SZ 10 (that alone causes me to question the wisdom of these tactics), nor should the US fleet have been there. They should have been safely out of reach in Hawaii except for one Destroyer to block shore bombardment.
I’m not going to go look at my board and calculate odds and replay the whole thing (too lazy and have hw). But I can assure you that this should never happen. If you’re really fighting for you life, fighters suck at defending. Infantry dominate. 10 ipcs. 1 fighter. defense of 4 and 1 life. or 9 ipcs. 3 infantry. Defense of 6 (total) and 3 lives. There is no comparison. If you stretch that out over 50 ipcs, the difference on defense is enormous. This should never be tried against anyone who understands the bare basics of calculations in the game.
I really should not respond to these threads.
^ lulz. Why not? If its that far beneath you, please don’t feel obligated.
Try it out in a forum game, I promise you it will not work.
Never said it would.
US should have bought 5 infantry turn 1 and 5 infantry, 4 fighters and a tank on turn 2.
Thank you for adding something of value to this topic, I will try that.
US fighters cannot scramble over SZ 10 (that alone causes me to question the wisdom of these tactics)
Can u elaborate on this point please? (Spare me the I’m Mr. Awesome drool, if u don’t mind.)
nor should the US fleet have been there. They should have been safely out of reach in Hawaii…
Agreed.
Fighters can only scramble from islands. The game defines islands as a single territory completely surronded by water. For example you can scramble fighters from Hawaii, but, not one of the two New Guinea territories.
Fighters can only scramble from islands. The game defines islands as a single territory completely surronded by water. For example you can scramble fighters from Hawaii, but, not one of the two New Guinea territories.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Does that apply to Japan on a Korea assault?
Back on Topic:
The U.S. player didn’t scramble anyway so its moot. (I will be the first to admit some rules slip through the cracks during a 4 hour game of heavy drinking.)
Is it worth trading British Columbia back and forth in this scenario?
or Just turtle in Western until production catches up?
Yes planes from Japan can scramble to defend its seazone even if the opponent intends to invade Korea because the scramble only cares about the seazone. As for the purchases, if you see a possible invasion coming, especially that against your capital then you buy the most amount of units you can afford each turn till then. Yes fighters defend on 4 but it is only 1 unit as stated in an above post. The player should have bought mountains of infantry and some tanks and let the ANZAC fighters do the major hit scoring while your ground troops soak up hits. Also moving the fleet out of annihilation range is key and just key a bombard blocking shit as a sacrificial lamb. Maybe even buying a sub, just one may force their hand to attack sooner than they intended if they don’t have a destroyer but from the sounds of it they brought the “house” on the US this game.
Conclusion being that the US player bought the wrong thing for defending his capital cause he should have had over 60 some odd IPCs worth of units. Also after seeing that turn 1 move by Japan, they China and UK player should look to press their advantage as fast as possible so when their invasion of US fails they will be screwed on income and will be set back awhile from taking things over in asia.
Japan can scramble fighters to defend Korea, since the rules only state that there must be a combat move in the surronding sea zone. I would go after the infantry in Canada, but with a bare minimum of ground troops, so if he landed a single infantry there I would hit it with an infantry and all my air units. His ground units are just soaking hits to protect his massive airforce, where as you should have more ground units to spare. So the quicker you cut into his air units the better. You just have to be mindful of not taking away too much off the defense of Western US.
Also if it’s only his Fleet from Japan in SZ 1 you could attack that with your fleet and all your air this leaves 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 2 fighters, 2 tac bombers, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer and a sub vs 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 crusier, 1 destroyer, 1 sub, two bombers, 3 fighters, and 3 tac bombers. You’d end up with the US attacking 2@2, 4@3 and 6@4 able to absorb 15 hits vs Japan 1@1, 3@2, 3@3, 3@4 and able to absorb 13 hits. The US should win this fight and keep their fighters alive. Without transports Japan is locked in a war in North America that they will not win.
I have successfully used the “Kill USA First” strategy against a very competent player. You will get many posts by people who will claim only the idiot of idiots will lose to this strategy, but the fact that they don’t realize this strategy’s viability against a competent player who is caught off guard demonstrates in itself why this strategy can work. With that said, it can be easily defended against by a player who knows to watch for it. See this thread for a similar discussion.
The Fire Knight is comparing apples to oranges, since fighters are clearly superior to infantry unit for unit. Although he is correct that infantry are far superior in defense to any other unit dollar for dollar, this situation is unique given that the US player has more far more IPC that what (s)he would spend building the maximum number (10) of infantry. I believe Gwlachmai is correct with his build recommendations.
@The:
I’m not going to go look at my board and calculate odds and replay the whole thing (too lazy and have hw). But I can assure you that this should never happen. If you’re really fighting for you life, fighters suck at defending. Infantry dominate. 10 ipcs. 1 fighter. defense of 4 and 1 life. or 9 ipcs. 3 infantry. Defense of 6 (total) and 3 lives. There is no comparison. If you stretch that out over 50 ipcs, the difference on defense is enormous. This should never be tried against anyone who understands the bare basics of calculations in the game.
That’s not to say that a single fighter or 2 couldn’t be mixed among a good number of infantry. Granted you need a good number but that occasional 4 defense is nice to have.
@The:
I’m not going to go look at my board and calculate odds and replay the whole thing (too lazy and have hw). But I can assure you that this should never happen. If you’re really fighting for you life, fighters suck at defending. Infantry dominate. 10 ipcs. 1 fighter. defense of 4 and 1 life. or 9 ipcs. 3 infantry. Defense of 6 (total) and 3 lives. There is no comparison. If you stretch that out over 50 ipcs, the difference on defense is enormous. This should never be tried against anyone who understands the bare basics of calculations in the game.
That’s not to say that a single fighter or 2 couldn’t be mixed among a good number of infantry. Granted you need a good number but that occasional 4 defense is nice to have.
dollar for dollar, pure infantry will always defend better than any other combination of units, but if your if the production capability of your factory is limiting your production more than your cash, then obviously 1 tank or 1 fighter will defend better than 1 infantry.
Also, I should say that the key to keeping this strategy from working is taking back your territories before Japan can land all their planes on them. Japan may be able to take WUS by turn 3 if they block z8 with a destroyer, replace their 2 tac bombers in z1 with 2 figs from japan, put 1 tank, 1 inf on Alaska and 2 inf on Brit Columbia, move z33 to z26 with 1 inf, and noncombat z19>z6 and all non-carrier aircraft to Japan on turn 1, but it would be costly enough for Japan that I wonder if they would still be able to win the game. Understand that Japan only gets 10 IPCs from controlling West US, not 50.
The suggestion of 5 infantry, 4 fighters seems the most logical. I’m not sure if it will be enough. I’m not looking to fight a battle that depends on how well I roll the AA gun.
The Japan strat that was used can be tweaked to allow more planes to hit Western U.S. on turn 3. Japan could afford to use less in Asia and buy more on turn 2 then what was done in the game I played. I guess what I’m asking is, why not go bare minimal planes in Asia?
I agree, attacking the Japan fleet in S.Z. 10 with the U.S. fleet + Planes would prolly work.
Which got me thinking; What if the Japan Fleet in S.Z.6 moves to S.Z.2, and blocks S.Z.1 and 9 with Destroyers? It seems like that would cause problems for the U.S. fleet. They can’t really attack, and if they move to Hawaiian Isles they can be blocked from getting back to S.Z.10. Thoughts?
Taking back British Columbia and more importantly Alaska before the planes can land (Complex Built) is the key, the U.S. player couldn’t find a way to do it, and honestly I had no good suggestions for him. I don’t think Trading British Columbia will stop an imminent J3 invasion.
As far as Asia goes, (I was playing U.K. /China) I had the U.K. stacked in Yunnan /w China. I was planning on taking Kwangsi on U.K. 3 and then take back Kwangtung (Japan consolidated in Kwangtung). I also had a Mech and Tank in the pipeline so I can start blitzing through Asia. I don’t really see what I could do differently in 2 turns. Japan bought a Major complex on J3 to place in Kiangsu (lol). China was stacking with U.K. and I had a couple infantry moving north to take back lost territories.
If Western U.S. goes down and Japan collects U.S. points, asking U.K./ ANZAC to win the game by conquering Japan is a tall order imo. Especially with a Major Complex in Kiangsu and a boat load of points to spend.
:-)
An effective US first strategy requires some deception but also depends on what the US player does. J1 US attack is too easy to counter. I make the normal J1 purchases (minor IC and 2 AP) and keep the IJN in home waters. That way I can either fork SZ1 and Hawaii, or continue my normal J2/J3 attacks depending on the US player’s action.
Did you build that minor IC in alaska? Is this legal placement? I think you may have edited out the fact you placed it in Alaska, but I think it was in your original post.
Did you build that minor IC in alaska? Is this legal placement? I think you may have edited out the fact you placed it in Alaska, but I think it was in your original post.
It’s absolutely legal. Minor ICs can be placed on any non island territory with a production rate (dunno if that’s the right term but the mumber in the circle) of 2 or more. Alaska is worth 2 ICPs so it fits.
Did you build that minor IC in alaska? Is this legal placement? I think you may have edited out the fact you placed it in Alaska, but I think it was in your original post.
Huh?
I have edited out nothing in any post.
As Mino1124 said, Minor in Alaska is legal.
My question is:
How do you pry Alaska back from Japan when they take it on turn 1, along with British Columbia and use boats to block crucial Sea Zones?
And yes their will be a minor complex their at the end of turn 2. Which wasn’t even needed or used in the game I played.
I don’t think it really matters if you take Alaska back as long as you build a solid defense. Unless the US player doesn’t see it coming, a move against the Western US is a bad strat.
I don’t think it really matters if you take Alaska back as long as you build a solid defense. Unless the US player doesn’t see it coming, a move against the Western US is a bad strat.
The pros and cons of not taking Alaska back are debatable imo. The combination of Escorted Bombing Raids and Japan subs in S.Z.10 can be a massive economic disruption and really ties the U.S. up logistically.
If Western U.S. falls do you feel Allies can still win?
This is a all or nothing strat. Japan is “all in” on round 3. Either they take Western U.S. and essentially win imo, or they fail and have wasted their resources to a point they can’t recover from. There is no middle ground or stalling tactics.
Which leads to the next natural progression of this strat (I’ve been play A&A vs. this player for a looong time, and he has always been the most aggressive player at the table). At some point he will try to hit Western U.S. with everything on the board on Round 3. At the very least I would like to be prepared in the event it does happen.
I’m 99% sure I can tweak the Japan strat to bring more then enough to beat: 11 Fighters, 3 Tac, 1 Tank, 1 Art, 1 Mech, 13 Inf, Couple Bombers. (Approximate numbers from memory)
I will think about it some more and post later.
If you would like to play a forum game so you can show me why this is a bad strat that would be great. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I’m saying show me.
The “That should never happen, It’s easy to counter” comments with not much backing it up are getting old.
