Pearl Harbor

Very cool thing for you to do Young Grasshopper.

Very nicely said zergxies

We know the benefits of doing a J1 attack, besides it simply being a lot of fun for the Japanese player. You get to kill a lot of allied units, take some territory expanding your empire (income) and it puts the Pac allies on their heals. When you also take out the Hawaiian fleet J1 it puts the US player under more presser. They feel the need to respond in some form, but they don’t have very many naval assets left. They are pretty much forced to stay in port, and build. I normally stage at Wake J1, then move to Caroline’s J2 to keep the Anz guessing. At some point I will be at Phil to set up def if the US goes all out Pac.

The Germans on the other hand are generally not too happy w/J1 attack because it unleashes the USA to go Europe if they choose (the Germans don’t want early US landings in their sandbox). When the US losses the Hawaiian fleet though they really can’t afford to move the San Fran fleet through the canal, and build Europe, because there would be absolutely nothing to contend w/Japan, and the other Pac allies are too weak w/o the presence of the USA.

It gives both axis powers a little more wiggle room. It makes it hard for the US to go Europe and respond to a real Sea Lion threat. I think it would also really mess with a Spanish Beachhead too w/o those extra naval assets.

I don’t know how much different a J1 vs J2 attack is for the Germans. There is precious little USA can do with its starting forces other than flying the SB to London to do some bombing. Assuming one or more U-Boats lived in SZ106, to move out of SZ101 unless it’s to Brazil means a coin flip to lose the Cruiser and TT, or tie up the UK DD from SZ109.

@ShadowHAwk:

If you plan this move and you are playing both boards why not use 1 sub from germany to attack the US fleet as well.

Its a coinflip but if you win US will lose convoy damage and has no atlantic fleet at all. In that case US loses more then 72 in units which is more then it makes in 1 turn when at war.

And the UK has to use 1 of its destroyers to take it out if able.  If you attack the destroyer off canada and win you will be doing convoy damage to the US at least 2 turns, and if they dont spend in the atlantic you keep doing damage for a longer time still.

That’s something to think about, no different then attacking the Brit cruiser in sz91, except you also get a chance to sink a tpt too. Then it is really only UK to worry about until the US figures out what the hell just happened :?

There is a big danger for the Axis to start an escalating Naval race in the Atlantic and Pacific.  Eventually they will lose the contest since the Allies have superior economies.  The focus needs to be on Moscow/Middle East/Egypt for the European Axis and Money Islands/India for the Japanese.  Other moves can help buy them a bit of time to achieve the major goals, but keep in mind that the clock is ticking.  Every turn that the Allies significantly out-earn the Axis is one turn closer to eventual Allied victory.  The balance mod makes the challenge even tougher: the increased Russian economy makes it much tougher to invade Moscow without a total focus on the endeavor.

Well said ABH.

Its about those carriers and how you position them.  You start with 3, usually need 1 to guard the home islands during war.

If you lose 2, or send them to Australia or Hawaii, that doesn’t leave any extras to cover SZ 6 AND the Spice Fleet.  Even if you buy an extra one, by J3, if you don’t have 2 carriers in the Indian Ocean, you can risk coming in too light or leaving Japan undefended.

Doing anything other than the Vanilla Program with Japan J1Spice costs you $$ and time.  You cant put a 40IPC econ up against a 70 IPC one with 4 little buddies in the theatre.

@taamvan:

Well said ABH.

Its about those carriers and how you position them.  You start with 3, usually need 1 to guard the home islands during war.

If you lose 2, or send them to Australia or Hawaii, that doesn’t leave any extras to cover SZ 6 AND the Spice Fleet.  Even if you buy an extra one, by J3, if you don’t have 2 carriers in the Indian Ocean, you can risk coming in too light or leaving Japan undefended.

Doing anything other than the Vanilla Program with Japan J1Spice costs you $$ and time.  You cant put a 40IPC econ up against a 70 IPC one with 4 little buddies in the theatre.

Sure, but doing PH doesn’t mean losing carriers.  The fleet in the Philippines is more than sufficient against the 1CA 1DD that both India and Anzac have.  As long as you cover your Borneo transport, nothing they do can stop you from taking money islands J2.

I completely agree that Japan can’t focus on a naval war if it wants to win, but doing PH gives you a favorable trade and does push the US back - you don’t need a CV to cover SZ6 if the nearest fleet is 2+ turns away!  If I thought PH meant giving up economy, I would probably be against it, but as I see it, it’s using part of the fleet that wasn’t giving you IPCs anyway.

zergxies, you are spot on. Only difference is on J2 I might take Malaya because it is a nice place to drop a 2nd IC, and stops the Anz NO. Then finish off the money islands J3, but either way you are getting to your economic goals (if you waited til J3 to attack you would be at the same place, but the Pac allies would have a lot more income, and units). The Pac allies are still losing income through early invasions, and NOs, as you gain income like any other J1 attack. They have also lost a lot of units, but now the USA has taken more of a beating losing both the Phil and PH fleets (they have no cannon fodder). At the very least you have bought your self a round of time, much more if the US decides to go Europe. The US is much weaker then w/o hitting PH, so the US reaction time is stalled on both boards, and they are really torn about what direction to take. I’m considering Shadows suggestion of hitting sz 101 w/German sub next time to really push the envelope lol.

To Arthur Bomber Harris, I agree that the Axis can’t win a naval race with Western Allies in the long term. Adding Pearl Harbor to J1 attack (then backing off to Caroline’s J2 in a defensive/offensive posture) levels the playing field some from the get go though. The allies have some catching up to do for parity on both maps, much less the over whelming naval strength that they need (gives the axis more time).

The Germans building a carrier on G1 has been a debate for as long as I can remember (pros and cons). I don’t think it sparks a naval race though because the Allies are going to build navy regardless (they may need to build a little more now). Yea a naval build can stall Barbarossa especially if the allies get ftrs to Moscow (which could happen anyway). I will say though I don’t like to build all ground G1 because it tips your hand too much IMO, and the UK is off the hook. I would rather pressure the Russians to give up their forward ICs (bringing in some art/inf through the Baltic as I take Leningrad) so I can build the units I need to finish the job on Red territory.

Some type of naval build (and keeping the German bb alive) sends a message to UK to max def London limiting what they can do on the first turn. It will keep the Baltic fleet a float longer, meaning the Germans keep Scandinavia longer. Building a carrier could be the single reason that the allies don’t go north to invade, because the amount of resources it will take to kill the Baltic fleet, or make a landing stick.  Plus a carrier (and a tpt or two) allows you to easily take Leningrad early, or even convoy UK sz106 if they went through with Taranto (convoy and SBR raid can really hurt the UK, but is a trade off to amphibing Russia, and comes w/some risk).

People seem to think that a carrier build is mostly for defensive purposes. Here is another point that I really haven’t heard much. I also look at a carrier build as extending the range of my ftrs when I want to be aggressive. It allows you to get planes into battles you couldn’t w/o a carrier (mostly at sea). A carrier can also allow you to have long range German Kami’s (if the planes die the carrier doesn’t have to risk picking them up). The allies have to account for that especially if I’m going Dark Skys bmr bulilds (which is a whole different topic).

@taamvan:

Its about those carriers and how you position them.  You start with 3, usually need 1 to guard the home islands during war.

If you lose 2, or send them to Australia or Hawaii, that doesn’t leave any extras to cover SZ 6 AND the Spice Fleet.   Even if you buy an extra one, by J3, if you don’t have 2 carriers in the Indian Ocean, you can risk coming in too light or leaving Japan undefended.

Doing anything other than the Vanilla Program with Japan J1Spice costs you $$ and time.   You cant put a 40IPC econ up against a 70 IPC one with 4 little buddies in the theatre.

I have actually left sea zone 6 undefended with no ill consequences other than a bit of convoy disruption. Do a defensive build in Japan proper to make sure it doesn’t fall and off goes the fleet with loaded carriers. The US moves in and perhaps takes Korea, I take India on my next turn and the US convoy disrupts me but the gain from India offsets it, and two turns later I am back in sea zone 6 (having destroyed or run off the US fleet because it cannot simply stand against a prepared IJN if the US is splitting its efforts). If the US has a bunch of loaded transports, you might need to consider a second round of defensive building before you move (but if the US has that many transports in the Pacific ready to kill Japan you might consider just killing the US fleet and then going to kill India!)

Obviously this depends on the strength of the US fleet, but as I said I have used it with great effect. It is especially good early in the game if the US is going Germany first.

Marsh

That is ok but if the USN can remain in SZ6 Japan is pretty much toast.

You can build a DD in SZ6 to force the USN to face Kamikazes or retreat but if that is not enough, things are bad for Japan.

:-) :-P :roll:

OK, finally got my forum account up and running.  The confirmation email was in my Junk Mail Box of all places. :roll:

Intriguing to see all of the Strategic discussions fostered about the J1 Attack.  I found myself being pulled towards Taamvan and Simon33 and Bomber Harris….and then pulled back to Wild Bill and Zerxes.  I’ve decided a gradual accumulation of the money islands by end of J3 is in order.  I will pull back J2 to Carolines (maybe…tend towards being a little compulsive which makes for surprises) but only once I’ve spanked PACFLT hard with IJF “Air Power!!” :-o and left 1 or 2 Gnd Units behind in Honolulu for the US to deal with.

Moving fwd I’d like to ask any of you about moving the 2x IN in Siam West instead of east in an attempt to prestage an attack on Malay on J2 with IJAF and no Amphib landing (focusing all TT amphib action on the money Is.).  This would kill the ANZAC NO early and keep AUS small.  Realize I can do the same thing by landing on New Guinea and threaten Dutch W. New Guinea.

Another issue I’d like to discuss. 
Not trying to cheat, but trying to visualize and stretch to its limits the advantage of leaving carriers behind for ghost Non-Combat Moves (NCMs) to justify maximizing Ftrs in an AirSea Battle (ASB).  Lets say in my J1 Attack on Pearl I use planes from the 2 IJN Carriers (CV) in SZ 6 but I also want to use the 2 planes from the SZ33 carrier to attack Manila, also on J1.  If I leave both CVs in SZ6 there until the NCM phase and I do the same with the carrier in SZ33, would this justify me being able to bring an add’l 2 Ftrs from mainland Japan AB into the battle at Pearl SZ26 for a total of 6x Ftrs in that AO…this all justified even if I only end up actually bringing 2 CVs in during the NCM phase because I selected 2 of the 6 planes as casualties during CC phase?

In other words, is the use of fighters I laid out above legal or not?  Or, if I only have 3 CVs allocated btw the 2 Battles, is 4x Ftrs the max total I can fly into SZ26 from JPN SZ6 and 2x Ftrs into Philippines from CV at Caroline Is.?  And, that’s just how the rules work about bonified landing spots…

Short answer is no your carriers can’t pull double duty. All your planes must have eligible landing spots when you set-up your combat moves.

WB.  Rog.  In YGH’s video the benefit when losing the planes was that only one CV had to move not that you get to add more planes……can I get ur thoughts on all of the above?

@Teflon2017:

WB.  Rog.   In YGH’s video the benefit when losing the planes was that only one CV had to move not that you get to add more planes……can I get ur thoughts on all of the above?

That is correct - the CV doesn’t have to NCM to catch dead planes. This doesn’t exempt you from the need to have a possible (however unlikely) NCM to catch all the planes if they all live. It can depend on the clearing of a SZ that is being attacked by one sub vs 10 defending BBs, for example, but it has to be theoretically possible.

I like to go for Malaya J2 for the reason you posted (Anz NO), plus that is the direction I want to go anyway to pressure India. So on J2 I will have fleet at Malaya, Caroline’s, and probably Philippines. All these are in striking distance to Queensland sz54. Not saying I would hit it, because I’m more interested in the money islands J3, but the threat is real and might keep the Anz building ground and not ships.

I also drop an IC on FIC J2 (sometimes Kwangtung too) so I can get a resurgence into China, threaten India, or for fleet later if I need to.

I don’t go for Hawaii unless the U.S. adds more ships to it and you have great odds making it really worth while.  Attacking it with a J1 attack puts way too many of your ships out of range.  You really need some of those down south and removing a few U.S. doesn’t make the cut.  It is just like going after Australia when you can’t even take Sydney.  The worst part is the fact that you can’t litterally take Hawaii itself which means no sea base to get repaired or get out of there.  Of course you can take Hawaii turn 2, but once again you are out of range of doing more important things.  On top of all this, the U.S. will b a little sad that he lost some ships, but on the other hand, he now has an easy way to get in the fight and is tying up a lot of enemy units.

@Young:

Why not converge as much Japanese navy that can reach into the Hawaii sea zone, with the American ships already there (they’re neutral powers after all). America wouldn’t be able to attack US1, the American ships wouldn’t be able to escape far, and America can only build 3 units off San Francisco US1, leaving them sitting ducks for a J2 attack (I call it a crowbar)… anyone care to do the math on that?

This actually isn’t possible. Japan can’t be within 2 spaces of Western US without declaring war and the Hawaii sea zone is 2 spaces.

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

We would really have an argument about the rules and the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory if Japan was allowed to “pass at peace” with the USA, waiting neutral with its entire fleet in SZ 26 off French Frigate Shoals.

Seems like that would be hard for the American patrols to miss…

@creeping-deth87:

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

SZ1, SZ10, SZ2 are all one space from those territories.

SZs 11, 3, 8, 9 and 12 are all two spaces.

SZ26 is 3 spaces
SZ25 is 4 spaces