UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy

Yanny, you don’t need to go from Alaska to the East Canada SeaZone for this trick to work. The planes start in Alaska and then move: Western Canada->East Canada SZ (Hudson Bay?) -> UK SZ (Attack) -> Western Europe = 4 spaces.

Unfortunately, this only works in the 2nd edition rules. The 3rd edition rules say that Western canada is no longer connected to the Easy Canada SZ. Bummer. Of course that jkust means Japan has to base its airforce in Western Canada, which is certainly doable, and would be highly entertaining.

Plus an invasion by the Japanese onto American soil would take some of America’s attention from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

SUD, how do you type so much?

I dont understand, are you planning on moving naval ships from Alaska to West Canada? Because that is illegal. Are you planning to use Planes? That will never go through, America will take it back.

How about America? If Britain can’t afford to defend itself, America can ship in their own infantry, bombers, fighters, and what not. This strategy leaves Russia too powerful, though I agree with the “no-hawaii” part :smile:.

Taking UK before Russia would be a fun thing to attempt one day, though when it actually does happen, it wouldn’t be done in such an intricate fashion.

Germany can try building a fleet, but they would have to use it to trick russia or america as well.

SUD:

Its irrelevant that the US can take Panama back. Its interesting that the US would divert a trans 2 inf and a plane to do so, since the whole point of the Jap attack is to pull US resources out of Europe. So a Jap attack on Panama is having the ideal result in this case.

If the UK builds an AC on turn 1, the US fighters are committed to fly to it and can do nothing in the Pacific theatre or else the German airforce will kill the AC with ease. At this point the Allied assault into Europe would stall for 1 maybe 2 turns. Against a good Axis player you have just lost the game. So by attacking Alaska, and you responding as you said you would will cost you the game.

The optimal response to the tired shuck-shuck strategy is for Japan to shuck-shuck into Alaska, and move its Airforce to Western Europe or Canada. The US will be tied up, and all the shuck shuck transports become wasted. The UK is at low teens income and effectively out of the game. Russia is caught in a 2 front war which it will eventually lose.

Japan can build an IC in Alaska, to build 2 tanks per turn and ship 4 to 6 inf per turn into Alaska while still pumping a tank and 4 inf into Asia. That’s enough for Asia because the only Allied player in Asia is Russia. The US will not be able to hard pressed to destroy the invading Jap forces. Any US ships lauched into the Pacific will be sunk by the Jap airforce in Western Canada. A force of 8+Jap infantry some tanks will take Western canada on J3. The US has to be careful, if it attacks Western Canada, it still needs to park enough forces in Western US to avoid a Japanese amphibious assault from Alaska to Western US. Most US players are not used to being invaded, and I think you would be surprised how hard the Japanese will hit you.

The Allied shuck-shuck strategy is flawed because it is so predicable, and easy to counter if the Axis works together. Germany sinks the AC on G2, and builds a fighter every other turn. Japan builds a fighter every turn and sends all its airforce to Western Canada/Europe. No allied ship in range goes unattacked. The Allied shuck-shuck stalls. Asia is now Axis dominated, and Germany has most of Africa. The allies are in dire straits because the UK has no IPCs, and America has no transports. Capital ships are expensive, and irrelevant. If the axis sinks all the transports, the allies are dead. Sorry I’m rambling.

Yes. If Japan was to land into Panama or Alaska if would definately tie up some of USA’s resources. This would probably delay the invasion 1 or 2 turns as USA now has to protect WUSA. Also what is this “shuck-shuck”? I know I have been playing A&A for many years but I have never come across that term before.

Shuck Shuck is the name I’ve seen given for the strategy of having two sets of transports and cycling them back and forth to make a continuous stream of landings across come body of water. Usually its from East US to somewhere in Africa or Europe.

I don’t know why its called shuck shuck.

I call it “the conveyer belt.”

Yeah, Conveyor belt does sound better.

yes, it has a good ring to it :smile:

wow i didn’t feel like reading all these……i like cookies :smile:

Yeah I am going to have to agree with SUD on this one. Always keep the threat alive with Japan but doing it is completely a different story.

Besides who would want to T1 Alaska? I mean there are so many more territories in the Asia Mainland that are better to take. I think that a invasion of Alaska should take place until at least T2, more likely T3 or even T4 depending on the “conveyor belt.”

Still, 4 infantry make a huge difference in Asia. and then sending two to four out each turn does compromise asian supremecy. Japan has to be threatening russia by turn 4. Taking Alaska is something you can do if you have complexes in Asia, some transports and infantry hanging around on the islands or japan itself.

Agreed. Japan shouldn’t even bother taking Alaska until conquest of Asia is assured. However, in this scenario the Axis are more concerned about invading Britian and waging economic warefare on the nation, and not so much being able to take the war to the Russia homeland.

whoa, i forgot the name of the subject itself!

sorry!