Japan gets killed

@Canuck12:

@maxx001:

The germans are a lot stronger in this version than the original MB 1942 that i also own.

Welcome to the forums maxx. I guess you’ve been out of the loop for a while but this is the 4th edition or so since that old MB version. So lots of things have changed.

But I have to ask. Are you sure you’re not playing the existing 1942 (first) edition. (The germans are also much stronger in that version.) Because this edition has not been released yet. It will be about another week until it comes out.

Yes i got it thursday this week for 52 USD.

And you’re right, I haven’t played any other version than the original 2nd edition from mb. and this new 2nd edition :)

A) As a die hard Kill Japan First fan, I have to say, any game that makes it easier has my attention - hands down.
B) In Classic Russia had 7 infantry in the east, not 5, and that wasnt anywhere close too enough.  What we did was just plain out ban Japan from flying over or walking/driving into Russian territories - period.  Made them a lot more manageable (and killed that frackin POS gimp move of Magic 84 for the axis as well.  Lamest copout rule I’ve ever seen, so glad it was never reincarnated in Larry’s games!)
C) For those that dont know, I’m also a die hard fan of Kill America First, it’s just so darn pesky to set up it’s usually not worth it.

@kcdzim:

Japan no longer has the option to send the BB from SZ 60 to Hawaii anymore, so there is no longer a Pearl Heavy option.  best pearl 2 is now 1 CV, 2 fighters, 1 bomber (ending in Wake or Solomans), 1 sub and 1 cruiser, and more likely than not the Carrier will hold back for a pearl light.   It’s certainly an interesting opening setup… Â

Also, unless I am miscounting somewhere, if Japan does hold back the carrier at Pearl, they can only get one fighter to the battle.  There is no fighter, other than the one in SZ50, less than 4 spaces from SZ53.

So if they hold back the CV, it is
1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 sub and 1 cruiser
vs.
1 Fighter, 1 CV, 1 sub and 1 destroyer

Japan should win that but they probably take two casualties, maybe 3 if some luck is on the US side.

On the bright side, the UK has no way to reinforce the Pearl fleet on UK1.  Though they could try and weaken Pearl2 by killing the Japan sub with 1 cruiser, 1 sub from Australia if they forego the East Indies attack.

@JamesG:

@kcdzim:

Japan no longer has the option to send the BB from SZ 60 to Hawaii anymore, so there is no longer a Pearl Heavy option. � best pearl 2 is now 1 CV, 2 fighters, 1 bomber (ending in Wake or Solomans), 1 sub and 1 cruiser, and more likely than not the Carrier will hold back for a pearl light. �  It’s certainly an interesting opening setup… �

Also, unless I am miscounting somewhere, if Japan does hold back the carrier at Pearl, they can only get one fighter to the battle.  There is no fighter, other than the one in SZ50, less than 4 spaces from SZ53.

So if they hold back the CV, it is
1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 sub and 1 cruiser
vs.
1 Fighter, 1 CV, 1 sub and 1 destroyer

Japan should win that but they probably take two casualties, maybe 3 if some luck is on the US side.

On the bright side, the UK has no way to reinforce the Pearl fleet on UK1.  Though they could try and weaken Pearl2 by killing the Japan sub with 1 cruiser, 1 sub from Australia if they forego the East Indies attack.

Right you are, Pearl light would be down a fighter as well.  Edit:  Actually, no, it wouldn’t necessarily.  You could send the fighter under the assumption that it will live and you will win, and reinforce with the carrier if the fighter survived.  But if you took the fighter as a casualty, you could move the carrier anywhere you wanted.  Might be a high price to pay, but still possible.

But UK cannot actually kill the Japanese sub unless the Japanese player is a fool - Subs can always choose to submerge before combat.  Unless you have a destroyer, you can never guarantee combat with a sub.

As for East Indies, I think Germany will now be forced to throw ALOT at Egypt on G1- including at least 2 fighter or the fighter and bomber to guarantee that the UK fighter dies.  Once the fighter is gone, it looks like a foolish UK player who would throw down against the Indies fleet.

@kcdzim:

~~Right you are, Pearl light would be down a fighter as well.~~  Edit:  Actually, no, it wouldn’t necessarily.  You could send the fighter under the assumption that it will live and you will win, and reinforce with the carrier if the fighter survived.  But if you took the fighter as a casualty, you could move the carrier anywhere you wanted.  Might be a high price to pay, but still possible.

You are completely right.  I probably blocked that possibility out of my mind because I hate that rule.  If I was made King of A&A the rule would be that all fighters must have a legal landing place at the end of the combat move.  A much simplier and easier to police rule.  No more saying what your CVs will do during noncombat to make your fighter’s move legal.  Either the CVs make the move during the combat move phase, or the fighters can not make the move themselves.

But UK cannot actually kill the Japanese sub unless the Japanese player is a fool - Subs can always choose to submerge before combat.  Unless you have a destroyer, you can never guarantee combat with a sub.

Right again, and I thought of this after I posted.  I think in an earlier version of A&A there would always be one round of combat before subs could submerge and that probably confused me.

As for East Indies, I think Germany will now be forced to throw ALOT at Egypt on G1- including at least 2 fighter or the fighter and bomber to guarantee that the UK fighter dies.  Once the fighter is gone, it looks like a foolish UK player who would throw down against the Indies fleet.

I don’t think Germany can get any fighters to Egypt on the new map.  The only air they can get there is the bomber.  Fighters on Italy or Southern Europe could get there, but the German setup has no aircraft in either location.  I do agree that a UK attack on the East Indies without the Egypt fighter is not a good one.  They would probably lose everything and only kill 2 fighters.  Probably not a good trade off even if the US is committed to KJF.

ugh, right you are.  I didn’t study the euro borders - seazones (and setup) completely changed in southern europe.  At best, Germany kills the fighter 70% of the time.  Which means it looks like Japan can be hammered 30% of the time.

Yea, I never really fell in love with the rule myself, but I’ve learned to adapt and you will too.  :wink:

Not to re-iterate my Round 3 thread, but Egypt should be G2 with 2 tanks, 3inf, art, 2FTR and BB.  And the Japanese should kill China and take position at the Phillipines. Don’t hit Pearl at all (considering I doubt the US will be there after US1).

@Mallery29:

Not to re-iterate my Round 3 thread, but Egypt should be G2 with 2 tanks, 3inf, art, 2FTR and BB.  And the Japanese should kill China and take position at the Phillipines. Don’t hit Pearl at all (considering I doubt the US will be there after US1).

Right, but the OP was in regards to how UK can crush the Indies fleet round 1 assuming the Egypt fighter lives.  Attacking Egypt G2 willingly concedes the Indies fleet, if the UK wants it.  And considering that the UK cannot realistically stop a G2 Egypt attack, moving the fighter to the Indies and crushing the Japanese force seems to be the ideal move as it would consolidate the UK fleets, send a lot of steel to the bottom of the ocean, and put the japanese fleets on the defensive while the US and UK get into positions.

The Indies fleet can be somewhat replacable on J1…but if UK doesn’t take Borneo, you can hinder UK cash flow and hold the Atlantic Navy in check w/remaining G subs, and your Air Force.  If UK pulls out UK1, then you don’t even need your FTRs for the attack for Egypt, and should use them to put a stranglehold on the Atlantic/start IB’ing UK.  Is this going to be costly for the Japanese? YES!  Not going to disagree at all…but where this can turn in Japan’s favor if the rolls go south for UK.  That’s the great/bad thing about UK1 here.  Odds favor UK, but any failure on UK part will allow those crazy japanese to go nuts, and I don’t think an all KJF strat will be enough to prevent Russia from falling.  Any Japanese unit surving (Most likely the BB), means stalemate in Pacific in worst case scenario for Japan.  Any surving UK units (like seen on the facebook pics), means a defensive Japan (but not as defensive as they had on the pics…that’s too much, even for me).  This is THE battle to decide who is fighting an uphill battle.

Damn I can’t wait!

Related question.  If the UK does attack the East Indies fleet with all that can reach, including the Egypt Fighter, should they also load up the two transports and try and take the East Indies as well?

If they win the sea battle (estimated upthread at 60%) then 1 Art 3 Inf vs 2 Inf should result in a UK win on the island.  Seems a risky play though because in the 40% of the time the battle goes bad all those troops are dead.  I think even if you retreat the transports before they die the troops can not unload, so Japan would sink the loaded transports on J1.

UK doesn’t start with an ART in the pacific.

On a related note, is Egypt unsaveable?
If germany waits till G2, you can move in 3 more INF and a 2nd fighter and play defense in the pacific.

If you max defend Egypt from a G2 attack, you end up with Germany winning the battle 66% of the time.
So, that sucks.

If you are going to sack transports, it’s better to get New Guinea and Borneo instead…Best thing to do is save the transports and if you fail in your naval attack…run like hell!

Ah, the “borneo gambit” we called it.

2 INF vs 1 INF for a 4 IPC island.

With the odds for the sea battle, I would not be inclined to try for Borneo.

It’s like in Anniversary - you CAN win Pearl Harbor 2 and amphibiously assault Hawaii, heck, I’ve even seen it work (because of a specific bid and where and how it was used.) However, the odds are not with you.

@oztea:

UK doesn’t start with an ART in the pacific.

LOL, right you are.  I was looking at the setup pictures and not the cards and mistook the new AA piece for an Art.

Yeah, it does not seem worth it to try and do a two transport attack on the East Indies.

Using the India transport on Borneo might be worth it, depending on what else is going on.  2Inf vs 1Inf is a gambit, but the 4 IPCs might make it worth it.  Though I would not go for 1 IPC New Guinea with the Australia transport.  While there is no place it can run that Japan can’t get to, depending on where it goes Japan would have to either weaken another attack like Pearl to get it, and/or pull units out of postition to get it.

Reason TO sack the transports (I’m not in full support, but if I was feeling froggy, Borneo would be at least one target and here’s why it works, espceially now):
With the Indies fleet gone, it forces the sub to take out one, and a FTR to take out one transport.  If the UK has any ship left, plus if you move the US Pac fleet to Solomons (and take it) turn 1, you are now in position to PROTECT Borneo w/both fleets (include a US/UK buy for Pac fleet).  Now Japan can try to retake Borneo, but at what cost? They’re down a BB/CV/2FTR at this point, and if UK/US buy Pac fleet, you are now talking about having to take Borneo with remaining Indies UK ships and India buy, which would force you to move almost everything, but then the US could also just move to Iwo, and be in position to off balance Japan.  Or Japan is just going to have to live with being at -4.  You can do this on UK2 if you want, but I would only cough up one CA and have the US in the Solomons protecting a counter.