Stall tactic

@Young:

Here’s a way the allies can be sneaky, when you feel it in your bones that the Japanese will DOW and start jumping on money islands, sail one British or ANZAC destroyer into the same seazone as the huge Japan fleet with all the loaded transports. This will prevent Japan from using their transports in an attack role as the destroyer blocks them, than the US can gain position around the islands and take a fight to them when they spread out the fleet. One of the major draw backs to waiting until a J4 attack, is that Japan will lose position around the money islands, and the Allies should be prepared to exploit that. Even if Japan sacks Calcutta, without a solid grip on the islands… their economy can not reach the necessary level in order to protect what they’ve gained let alone expand further.

Sorry YG but you’re quite wrong on this one. The rules specifically allow those transports to be loaded on the turn Japan declares war. If that tactic was legal there is no end to the number of ways the Allies could screw with Japan and it would make the game unplayable… just send destroyers to wherever Japan has their transports and they’d never be able to DOW and load transports on the same turn. It would create colossally stupid game situations.

Japan would have to J1 DOW every game if that tactic were legal, otherwise the only place it could be guaranteed to be able to load transports on its DOW turn would be SZ6 on J2, and no SZ thereafter.

@Young:

@Wolfshanze:

I know i’ll sound stupid here… but…

DOW?
DEI?

Declaration of war
Dutch East Islands

at the risk of being annoying… it’s “Dutch East Indies”

Thanks guys, and sorry for getting that wrong… now I’m off to chew out the guy that’s been playing me for a fool  :|

@simon33:

I would choose to interpret the rule that the Japanese’ first turn after the DOW applies the exemption. Otherwise it seems a loophole.

It is a loophole.

@simon33:

It doesn’t specifically state that this only applies for the declarer of war. It’s the first turn that Japan has entered a state of war with the UK so I would consider that the exemption still applies.

I don’t think that interpretation is the correct one. I have no problem with house ruling it away, because it is a cheesy move on the part of the Allied player, but in a tournament I believe it’s the rule unless everyone agrees otherwise.

Marsh

@Young:

Thanks guys, and sorry for getting that wrong… now I’m off to chew out the guy that’s been playing me for a fool  :|

Sadly, that’s usually the dude in the mirror for me!

Marsh

I really don’t see it as a loophole or a trick; its an exploit.

There is no operational cost or risk to leaving the guys on the transport here because they should be very well protected by the warship fleet sent south to seize the DEI/India.  A J1 avoids any of these risks, with other huge benefits, risking only a USKJF.

The same spoiler can happen during a J2 vs India;  If Britain blocks SZ 37 with a warship, Japan can only “pass at peace” during noncoms if they want to reach SZ 39.  If they attack the ship in SZ 37, they can only attack SZ 39 with air.  This is why failing to screen/block SZ 37 is a crucial defensive failure, because otherwise Japan can seize Ceylon on J2 and defeat Calcutta on J3.

@taamvan:

There is no operational cost or risk to leaving the guys on the transport here because they should be very well protected by the warship fleet sent south to seize the DEI/India.  A J1 avoids any of these risks, with other huge benefits, risking only a USKJF.

Yep, no downside for leaving the troops on the ships.

In the real world, you can’t do that. Those guys are heavily armed after all!

Marsh

@Marshmallow:

@simon33:

I would choose to interpret the rule that the Japanese’ first turn after the DOW applies the exemption. Otherwise it seems a loophole.

It is a loophole.

@simon33:

It doesn’t specifically state that this only applies for the declarer of war. It’s the first turn that Japan has entered a state of war with the UK so I would consider that the exemption still applies.

I don’t think that interpretation is the correct one. I have no problem with house ruling it away, because it is a cheesy move on the part of the Allied player, but in a tournament I believe it’s the rule unless everyone agrees otherwise.

Marsh

I was going to say that if you read it that way then if, for example, UK declares on Japan then Japan can’t load transports in contested sea zones. But that can’t actually happen because there would be combat on the UK’s turn. I guess the only possibility is a newly mobilised unit which is extremely unlikely.

Still, I think this one needs to be tidied up.

I also think the rule about moving ships through a sea zone which was hostile for Combat Movement on NCM is somewhat cheesy and more common. A big deal in the Med UK1.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34893.0

US, USSR, China, ANZAC and France have no initiative in the game… always have to react.

Only UK has initiative. Taranto, Tobruk  and TMG (The Mahatma Gambit)

This is reflective of the true WWII situation.

So, only stall tactic in Pacific, against monster Japanese Navy and Airforce, is the UK India Navy.

THREATEN to Sacrifice the BB or DD , to delay the Japanese Momentum for a turn. The BB costing 20 IPC, will delay Japan getting 25+ IPC . It can also help in Phillippines etc

Allies still come up positive with this play.

Russian player and Moscow will thank you for this… as if Japan goes J2, then usually Moscow can be held against a G6/G7/G8 attack

If no J2, then UK BB in Tokyo water, means a botched J3, unless Japanese player sees this and plays very accurately and carefully.

This is not a cheat tactic, as was mentioned before.

This is the only meaningful Allied threat in the Pacific theater to keep Japan honest.

Good luck analysing this play.

USA has no initiative? What moves does it have to react to. I don’t think you understand the term.

US’s hands are tied till end of Turn 3. Unless Axis DOW on it…or Japan attacks unprovoked .

In Atlantic, it cannot go beyond a certain limit.

In Pacific, it cannot park it’s Navy next to Japanese territory…

Is neutral in Pac, cannot use other Allied NB, AB.

So whatever moves it makes away from Continental US is very obvious, and Japan can at its will choose to take action where it wants, more or less.

So, unless there is a DOW, US cannot act to help allies till US4.

Hence Axis have the advantage of deciding the course of the game…hence the initiative.

Definition  of “Initiative” (among others):

“Power or opportunity to act or take charge BEFORE others do…”

So, among Allies, only UK, and to an extent Anzac has it, in the opening and early part of the game…

Hope this makes it clearer.

Since we are discussing “Stall” tactics, found it relevent to mention Alied (UK/Anzac) moves, that can tinker with or counter Axis plans.

Ah, no initiative until the JDOW.

@MeinHerr:

US, USSR, China, ANZAC and France have no initiative in the game… always have to react.

I disagree. For example, while the US may not take the offensive before it is at war, it can still position its fleet in the Pacific in such a way that Japan is forced to react to the US fleet positioning. If the US performs a buildup in sea zone 26, Japan must counter that buildup in sea zone 6, block the route from sea zone 26 to sea zone 6, or abandon sea zone 6. If Japan fails to respond to US fleet positioning, there are consequences when the US is at war.

Now, you may say that as long as sea zone 6 is defended when the US enters the war that Japan is ok, and that’s true. But Japan still has to account for that possibility in its planning, and that is reacting to the US.

When Japan is reacting to the US, the US is the power that has the initiative. The US is the big boy in the Pacific, and Japan ignores the US (even when not at war) at Japan’s peril.

Other examples exist. For instance, ANZAC can turtle up, go to the aid of India, or turn the money islands into a money pit for Japan. Depending on its objectives, Japan has to react differently to all of these situations.

Marsh

They do not have the strategic initiative.  That doesn’t mean they cant feint, deter, bluff, react, position etc but he is right that the turn order gives them the power to consistently act before the other players, which #2 def. of the word and the one that corresponds to “strategic initiative”

like leading a dance partner
or playing the black player in chess

this is another definition of initiative;  the allies do have this form of initiative;

“the ability to assess and initiate things independently.”

I think we’re pretty much in agreement – the Allies do have some initiative.

Marsh

If there is a buildup in SZ26, means US is not building in Atlantic. It is one thing if the plan is to defend Hawaii…. its totally different if you want to use the initiative to “occupy” SZ 6 !

Japan starts with a vastly superior Navy which when the US is AT PEACE, building 3 units a turn in W. Coast, will take minimum of 3 turns to just come to parity.

With 21 planes Japan has no problem defending SZ 6  . One DD blocker is enough to delay US coming there for a turn.

So with:

1. Turn order of play
2. The extra turn, with the DD blocker…
3. The knowledge of when to strike, esp seeing the buildup in Hawaii
4. The bigger Navy
5. The Mega Airforce
6. And… yes… the Kamikazes… equal to 6 ATTACK Submarines (without defending DDs)…
7. No pressure on Germany /Rome in the Atlantic…
   Is more than enough to obliterate any US Navy that comes calling .

Japanese play is IMHO the most complex in the game.

If US approach is to stack Hawaii to go forth and sally into SZ 6  and not build an effective navy in Atlantic, with competent German play, a good overall plan to win, barring bad rolls, a competent Japanese player, it is hard to see how the Allies will win.

This scenario has been played against me about 3 times and each and every time, Allies have lost.

Hence, yes, there is initiative, but used the way advised going to SZ 6… will surely lose the game double quick.

@MeinHerr:

If US approach is to stack Hawaii to go forth and sally into SZ 6  and not build an effective navy in Atlantic, with competent German play, a good overall plan to win, barring bad rolls, a competent Japanese player, it is hard to see how the Allies will win.

That seems about right but without some IJN presence in SZ6 the USN can get there with its starting force, and not even all of it. 3 scrambling fighters and a DD doesn’t really seem enough to me.

@MeinHerr:

The Mahatma Gambit

Curious about this one. Looked it up and it seems to assume that the UK BB will block access to the DEI for TTs in SZ20. It won’t happen that way in most games I’ve seen. Nearly everyone reinforces Kwangsi J1 which puts at least one TT south of the BB which can then go on to hit the DEI. This is normally also defended so WTF?

Is it just an outdated idea killed by some change in the rules or tactics or am I missing something?

Transport loading rules according to rulebook I got , said that Transports could not be Loaded in a Hostile seaZone.

Ie: if the UK - BB were to be in SZ 6 , in peace on UK2, and Anzac declares war on Anzac 2….then on Japan Turn 3, they could not load the Transports, as the UK BB on SZ6, made it a hostile zone…

That was the point of The Mahatma Gambit…

If they changed those rules recently, then they removed the only preemptive capability of the Allies in the Pacific.

It’s not easy to have changes made in the rulebook, and should such a change have been made, although I (Ramdas Vaidyanathan )should get credit for that, it would be truly sad to see one more element of advantage added to the Axis domination of the game.