J1–>Alaska; J3 Game Over.

You have to figure a US invasion scenario is something that got heavily playtested. There would be no point in releasing a game that is over in three rounds. Honestly, I think the game favors the Allies more then the Axis, and balancing Euro40 will be even more difficult.

This strat is inttiguing but I too think that with proper US buys that this will not work.

However, the mere threat of Japan from the Alleutian Island group may force US into early buys on land forces over naval forces which could prove devastating in rounds 4 and on when the US finally gets in the game.

So in other words its a gambit you pull back from later after round 3.  As Allies I may consider attacking right away in rounds 2-3 with the Brits/ANZAC.

Has anyone tried this gambit and then pulled back to mess up the US early buys???  This may have a long-term payoff.

@questioneer:

This strat is inttiguing but I too think that with proper US buys that this will not work.

However, the mere threat of Japan from the Alleutian Island group may force US into early buys on land forces over naval forces which could prove devastating in rounds 4 and on when the US finally gets in the game.

So in other words its a gambit you pull back from later after round 3.  As Allies I may consider attacking right away in rounds 2-3 with the Brits/ANZAC.

Has anyone tried this gambit and then pulled back to mess up the US early buys???  This may have a long-term payoff.

3 of us are testing this “gambit” right now.  Links to the games are below.  I think you will see that it’s more of a gimmick that might work once against a drunken opponent, but is generally not a viable strat.

Rounds 2-3??  :lol:  The other allies, including and especially China, all get easy instant growth from round 1 while the bulk of the Japanese navy and air force are trying to get to Alaska for this rash invasion.  The Chinese can buy 3 artillery right up front, and the Burma road is uncontested.  And if you have to get most of the Jap airforce and navy out of position to get USA to buy 5 infantry with their whopping 17 starting IPC’s, well, I don’t think that’s a good idea.  I’m not sure what round you’re thinking of aborting the bluff positioning, but I don’t see how this screws up the USA in rounds 4 and on.

If you would like to show me what you’re talking about, I’m up for a game.

@Tragedy:

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.

I watched (yes, watched …) a game that Japan took Western US (round 5 I think) and the Allies continued to press on until Japan finally fell around turn 9.

Absolutely it is possible.  Difficult, but possible, especially since by taking WUS, Japan is “all in” leaving the rest of the pacific open (to an extent).

What happened, did Japan completely abandon Asia? The UK load up a bunch of transports with Chinese infantry and artillery?  :-o

:lol:

@gamerman01:

@questioneer:

This strat is inttiguing but I too think that with proper US buys that this will not work.

However, the mere threat of Japan from the Alleutian Island group may force US into early buys on land forces over naval forces which could prove devastating in rounds 4 and on when the US finally gets in the game.

So in other words its a gambit you pull back from later after round 3.  As Allies I may consider attacking right away in rounds 2-3 with the Brits/ANZAC.

Has anyone tried this gambit and then pulled back to mess up the US early buys???  This may have a long-term payoff.

3 of us are testing this “gambit” right now.  Links to the games are below.  I think you will see that it’s more of a gimmick that might work once against a drunken opponent, but is generally not a viable strat.

Rounds 2-3??  :lol:  The other allies, including and especially China, all get easy instant growth from round 1 while the bulk of the Japanese navy and air force are trying to get to Alaska for this rash invasion.  The Chinese can buy 3 artillery right up front, and the Burma road is uncontested.  And if you have to get most of the Jap airforce and navy out of position to get USA to buy 5 infantry with their whopping 17 starting IPC’s, well, I don’t think that’s a good idea.  I’m not sure what round you’re thinking of aborting the bluff positioning, but I don’t see how this screws up the USA in rounds 4 and on.

If you would like to show me what you’re talking about, I’m up for a game.

No I completely agree, I figured the that China+India would be able to grow much better in this scenario.  Even if you were able to put some pressure on China AND make the US buy infantry because to the Alleutian Is. threat,  when you pull back after or during round 3 your Jap navy is too far north and way out of position to handle a US round 4 or 5 strike.  ANZAC would be huge positional advantage.

Just curious anyway- does sound like a gimmick more than a true gambit :-)

@questioneer:

No I completely agree, I figured the that China+India would be able to grow much better in this scenario.  Even if you were able to put some pressure on China AND make the US buy infantry because to the Alleutian Is. threat,  when you pull back after or during round 3 your Jap navy is too far north and way out of position to handle a US round 4 or 5 strike.  ANZAC would be huge positional advantage.

Just curious anyway- does sound like a gimmick more than a true gambit :-)

:-) One of the two test games has reached a conclusion, I think, and Tragedy will be moving J2 on my game before long.  You could look at the end of turn one, too.

Tragedy v Gamer P40 ANZAC1.AAM

I have been looking at this over the past week and it does look intriguing, but I also believe proper US play should diffuse it.  I am curious on some of the opening Jap and US moves however.  One simple thing I saw at first (Although not a game breaker by any means)  was that when he moved his CV’s into defensive positions at Hawaii and seazone 1 he left the Tac’s on board.  I would have non-commed a fighter on all my CV’s for added defensive power.  Also why bring the loaded tranny from TRUK to Hawaii, was that just to entice a response in the area more so then seazone 1.  Otherwise I personally would have sent it to sz 6 turn one with the 3 purchased trannies.  Lastly, I thought the strat involved a turn 2 minor IC purchase on Jap 2 for Alaska?  Just inquiring, I may have read some of the posted moves wrong, so correct me if I interpreted it incorrectly.

Cool.  I think what you guys are doing is great.  Its always a breath of fresh air to see these strats come to life whether they succeed or not.

@Tragedy:

Gamer I’m REALLY interested to see how our game turns out.

Me too, Trag!  I’m planning to play you until a clear winner is decided (both sides agree).  Win or lose, it sure is interesting and fun.

I see you posted again, so I’ll check that out and maybe even move tonight if I have time.

I don’t think this move would have worked had the US player been paying attention.  With the Japense in Alaska and with a large transport buy, why were they not anticapating an invasion?  And since Japan attacked on turn 1, that gives the US 55 or so to buy a counter.

5 Fighters?  Why not 9 or 10 tanks?  Combined with 5 Infantry from a first round buy and the starting planes, and I don’t think Japan has much of a chance.

I think a Japanese attack could work if alterned.  I’ve been toying with the idea of a J4 attack.  This gives Japan more buying power through 3 turns.  Japan waits to leave on turn 3 and sails into SZ1, but doesn’t attack.  You’re forecasting your move, but not giving the US any added income.  Sure, they’ll be at war on J4, but the fleet is just 1 space away and can’t be destroyer blocked.

Sorry I’m late in returning to this party, but there’s a few things I’d like to throw in…

@Tragedy:

• 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?

Judging by your move in your games, you seem to have figured out that this does not keep the US from attacking z1 and landing in Alaska.  However, if you move 1 BB, 4 fig, 2 CV, 1 CC, 1 DD, and 1 SS to z1, the US can still send 1 bmr, 1 tnk, 1 inf to Alaska, all other naval and air units in range to z1, and all remaining land units to Bco, and they have, by my figuring, about a 65% chance of winning all three.  That, however, is not necessarily their best counter, depending on what else happens J1.

@Tragedy:

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.

@Gwlachmai:

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 most solid of defenses will not guarantee you security if you do not fight back strategically.  Unimpeded after a J1 move which takes both Bco and Alaska, Japan can attack WUS on J3 with 8 inf, 3 art, 1 tnk, 4 bmr, 10 tac, and 14 fig.  Wus at best, as far as I can tell, will have 15 inf, 1 mec, 1 art, 2 tnk, 11 fig (4 are ANZ), 3 tac, and 3 bmr.  I believe that, accounting for the AA gun, that gives Japan a 65-70% chance of conquering the territory.  Also, bombing raids against Wus should not be happening, since there should be 7+ fighters there to defend after US2

@Tragedy:

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.

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t.  As I said before:@Stoney229:

If the allies respond to a KUSAF in such a way that they lose if Japan decides not to go through with it, then it’s still a working strategy

The allies are forced to go “all out” to defend against it, so a KUSAF strategy that is able to take advantage of this by neglecting Wus and eliminating the vulnerable US fleet and invading the now undefended Philippines, Hawaii, New Zealand, etc is worth considering.  With that said, test games should probably not require the Jap player to attack on J3.  The ultimate goal of a test game, in my opinion, should not be to see if Japan can invade Wus on exactly J3, but to see if Japan will win a game with a certain opening strategy - in this case one that threatens to conquer Wus by J3.  However, my guess is that this “fake out” strategy will still not be as effective as a good India rush strategy.

@Tragedy:

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.

Well spoken, sir.  I agree.

@Tragedy:

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.

@gamerman01:

The point someone made earlier about WUS only being worth 10 is silly.  It’s worth 50 to the WUS, and if the US is out of the game that early, this game is unwinnable by the Allies (to answer your question, Tragedy)

I’m not saying I think UK/ANZAC will win even if this strategy is successful, but I stick to my opinion that the idea is not too far-fetched or “silly”.  As Tragedy said, this is an “all out” strategy.  Japan can take all of the DEI if they want, but they essentially give it to the UK by going for Wus instead.  In a simple glance, you can see that Japan taking Wus is an income swing of 50 in favor of Japan, but the UK having the DEI instead of Japan is an income swing of 40 in favor of the Allies.  The Allies can still double Japan’s income even if Japan has all of North America, Hawaii, and Philippines.  The question may be whether or not Japan will still have enough of it’s originally superior military to swing that imbalance back toward Japan’s favor quickly enough.

@The:

What on earth are you guys talking about with these forum games? How do you play them? I would really like to show off my strategic brilliance once in a while.  :wink:

The “AModulePack” that is currently linked to in the stickied “ABattlemap Module” thread on the Anniversary board does not yet include the P40 module (as far as I know), since the current P40 module will not be the final one.  You can find the latest P40 module, however, in the first post of this thread.  A new and near-final version will be released with or soon after the next update of ABattleMap.  The updated program will include new features, such as support for P40’s convoy system, and the updated module will utilize the newly supported features.  In the meantime, feel free to dive into the wondrous world of forum play and show us your strategic brilliance!

Stoney, it’s a bit early to say this, but since you just posted -

I am waiting for J3 in our test game.  There is no requirement to attack J3, but as I said in the game thread, it’s probably the best option at this point.

The “all-out” defense of the allies to defend against a possible J3 attack of Wus is really not even that inconveniencing.  I sent 3 ANZAC fighters to Wus that don’t have anything to do anyway, and the US has bought 11 infantry and 4 fighters in her first 2 rounds.  Units that could be put to good use if the J3 attack does not happen.

No, I think the J1, 2, and 3 attack on Wus is a pie in the sky idea.  It’s not practical, and is not high percentage.  Whether Japan attacks on round 3 or pulls back like it was one big bluff, Japan is in a poor situation.  As you said, an India rush (or really, any combination of attacks on India, China, and ANZAC/USA) is preferable.  After 2 rounds, well, let me get the current map for you.  In my estimation, it is not looking good for Japan at all.

Now if J can get USA’s 60, that will help their cause, but J will lose an awful lot of material taking Wus.  China is already getting to be a beast, and without J airpower, will continue to take more territory.

China has 18, UK has 28, ANZAC has 28, and J is clear up in Alaska.

In the 20% or so chance that Wus falls, the minor allies are actually still looking good, I think.  But like I said, let’s wait for J3.

Tragedy v Gamer P40 ANZAC2.AAM

@gamerman01:

The “all-out” defense of the allies to defend against a possible J3 attack of Wus is really not even that inconveniencing.  I sent 3 ANZAC fighters to Wus that don’t have anything to do anyway, and the US has bought 11 infantry and 4 fighters in her first 2 rounds.  Units that could be put to good use if the J3 attack does not happen.

Another “all out” option…

Assuming a five infantry buy US1, then you bought 6 Inf 4 fighters US 2. Thats 10 units and 28 defense. (12+16). At an IPC cost of 58 IPC.

9 Tanks + 1 inf = 29 defense. Costs 57 IPC.

Just a bit more defense.

Thanks for the idea, squire, but tanks are not as conducive for future transporting.  Only 1 tank per transport.