USN in DEI vs IJN in SZ42 (Java)

It is a key square, but its out of position to defend SZ 6.

Once japan moves “below the line” it can’t rescue SZ 6.  If Japan did not leave a sufficient warding force to intimidate USA, then USA steps up into SZ 6, SZ 7 for reinforcements, takes Iwo, often rescues Russia.

Game 174 (G42) Dave left 2 BB 2 DD 2 sub 1 fighter to guard SZ6.  The rest took India.  This was nowhere near the 4 CV 2 BB 2 CA 8 DD 10 Sub force that USA had, so he joined his fleets together in 36 and built a naval base.    Since I blocked SZ 19, his ships cant come and so he was up against 30+ hits with only 11-15 planes that can attack.  Dave was forced to re-configure for a VC win and took Sydney, now my fleet (at carolines mostly) is between him and home.  Its a fight over the Chinese VCs for the game at the moment.

I don’t buy strategic bombers or many transports with USA in G40 or G42 in the early game.  I buy up to 4-5 carriers, add ANZAC fighters to them, then focus on subs with dd’s @ 2:1 ratio, roughly.  After you have control of SZ 6 or at least force him to leave, then you can get TTs.

This is maximum offensive punch and hits at the expense of flexible range and optimal sea defense.

I can’t dismiss the power of the kami, but even all 6 at once cannot be relied upon to either deter or destroy, disable the USA.

He does buy a ship every round, last round a carrier to receive key planes that attacked my Korean forces.  Its a good point that he could potentially have stopped me from entering the square by keeping his forces there, and relying on the kami’s to make it really costly.    I’m assuming he did not do so because he considers the kami too weak and unreliable to have changed the game, at that point, also I had forces entering from multiple directions and meeting up in SZ 6, so he was outmatched hit for hit.  I’m not certain but I think I cleared the SZ with 4 fighters, a DD and a sub.  If I had brought the carriers, I deserved to be kami’d.

Most of the stuff NCM’d into the square, but its a great reminder that like we keep saying on the board, the carriers should not enter the actual combats on homeland zones unless they are required for victory.

He’s still blocking the transport wave (its in SZ 7, hes blocking SZ 6).  Still, it can NCM through with 8 men next round, onto the last capital in China, that ANZAC already captured.    Boy, that one Z-TT has done its duty this game.  Like every game with dave, even though I have him in a chokehold, its not over.

@simon33:

How on earth does the USN get to be dominant over the IJN when the latter camps out in SZ42 off Java. Even after 5 turns of full Pacific buys, the USN can only attack SZ42 on the 3rd turn after building while the IJN can be in position 2 turns after building in SZ6. And the IJN can build just the CVs while the USN has to build planes on top of them.

I feel like I must be missing something, but when I play Japan, I hold SZ42 until I take India and normally longer.

Occupying the Carolines SZ (sz 33?) ought to persuade Japan to retreat to sz35.

Camping out in 42 works great for the first 5-6 rounds but gets dicier if Japan doesn’t buy more carriers.  More carriers means less of something else so there’s a tradeoff.

Hi all.

Great discussion so far. Heres my analysis.

The first thing the US player must do is to decide what the goal of the US Navy is. This boils down to the following options.

1. Convoy raiding against Japan.
2. Prevent Japanese amphibious assaults on Australia.
3. Conduct offensive amphibious assaults.
4. Obtain Naval supremacy.

Each goal will have specific builds. Optimising build strategy avoids wasted points and allows tou to obtain the goal more efficiently.

1. Goal 1 is a useful lead up to the other three. It requires the least investment and can be used in conjuction with other strategies. Basically a fleet of 10 - 15 -20 submarines is built up over turn 1-5 and spread out around japan and china.

2. Send  2-6 destroyers and subs to queensland. Let the anzacs do the rest.

3. This requires a massive committment of forces to protect vulnerable transports. The second obstacle is the sheer distance to refill transports. Japans airforce makes this difficult.

4. Also difficult and requires many turns production

@simon33:

How on earth does the USN get to be dominant over the IJN when the latter camps out in SZ42 off Java. Even after 5 turns of full Pacific buys, the USN can only attack SZ42 on the 3rd turn after building while the IJN can be in position 2 turns after building in SZ6. And the IJN can build just the CVs while the USN has to build planes on top of them.

I feel like I must be missing something, but when I play Japan, I hold SZ42 until I take India and normally longer.

You have to purchase the right stuff in order to dominate the Pac as the Allies. As the Allies and Not the US allone.
Subs and DDs are the Backbone for the Allies in Pacific side.
Most of us Buy CVs the first few turns wich is totally ok but you need to switch as soon as you can.

The Allies should throw a party when a Zero gets shot down.
Less Ftr’s and TacB for Japan means less quick outfitted CVs in the waters.

Anzak should follow one of these two courses.
A: Buy mostly Subs or
B: Buy mostly Ftr’s…either way, use them. Watch out dir opportunities to sink IJN ships! Oh doesn’t matter if you didn’t get to their Planes.  Japan needs to refit their Navy.
A sunken CV or two a CR and a DD plus a SS =~40 IPC.
40 ipc less on the mainland. Less odds against the USN in a Face to Face seabattle.
Less landingplattforms for mainland Ftr’s.
2 Ftr’s off of Malaya plus 2 Ftr’s off of a CV in sz42 can potentially reach you.
With a CV killed there is less of a threat now.
Last but not least, play wisely with China. If you get overruned by J don’t wonder why they have a free hand now.

@taamvan:

If Japan did not leave a sufficient warding force to intimidate USA, then USA steps up into SZ 6, SZ 7 for reinforcements, takes Iwo, often rescues Russia.

What do you mean with warding force taamvan?

As long as you have a DD in sz16 and one in sz 6 you should be fine. :wink:

• US6, the US moves 3CVs 3DDs 6ftr to SZ6.
• J7, Japan places a DD in SZ6.
• US7, if the USA wants to remain in SZ6, it must risk Kamikazes. I would do two on each CV. You will probably dent 1-2 CVs with that approach, which will mean that the planes need to fly away and can’t defend against an attack.
• J8, Japan attacks the remaining fleet in SZ6 and sinks it

Yes, thank you for clarifying.

In the live game we were playing, the carriers left during the combat on that key turn (leaving planes and subs to clear SZ 6), with new carriers/surface ships from SZ 7 entering/crossing during NCM.    To the degree possible, I would have screened at least the ships coming to attack, but as soon as the “pushing off” of SZ 6 was complete only a garrison force of non-kami stuff was left behind (1 CA, 3 DD, 2 SUB, 4 more subs in SZ 19) and the rest joined on the Caroline’s, SZ 19, etc.    The power was overwhelming enough in this situation that he chose not to try to match me or scare me away with Japan and he headed south instead.    Still, Moscow, Calcutta and Sydney are all down, the price of making this US move…

Since after the first confrontation, I had Korea, my planes could land after the carriers got kami’d, lessening the blow.

Its not a choice, you need to clear the japan navy from the sea around the money islands.
You dont need to have supremacy, mutual annihilation works just a well.

You cannot convoy raid effectively if japan has a huge fleet available,
and a few subs-destroyers is not preventing japan from taking australia

What I’m saying is that over the initial 4-5 turns the US will not have the resources to challenge Japan in a full on confrontation. (as the initial poster said) Even if you have enough ships the Japanese has the advantage due to its land based air and kamikazes, so the USN must choose  where to start. Add to this the 3-4 turn voyage from America and it is unlikely you will achieve success without leaving somewhere else on the map dangerously weak.

That’s why I would initially suggest a full sub blockade against Japan. If you commit to building 3-4 subs per turn by turn 5-6 you will have 15 subs. 10 at sz6 and 5 in sz 19.

The advantages of this.

Closer to US base of production
Eliminate kamikaze threat
Eliminate threat from land based air.
Japan down 20 production.
Blocks or kills Japanese transports picking up units from Japan

What does Japan do?
If their fleet is hanging out in Indonesia, they will have to turn north. Its going to be a couple of turns for the fleet to arrive so the US player has options. Withdraw and wait for reinforcements or attack the fleet knowing you will hurt the capital ships not the aircraft. Japan can’t use the destroyers as screens.
If they build destroyers then great, at least they are’t building infantry, the last thing Japan wants is to have to build more naval forces when its main needs are infantry.

Assume its turn 5 and the Japanese decided to go North to relieve the blockade. It could be turn 8 before they get there. The Americans can then send aircraft or more subs so by the time the Japs arrive they are faced with 25 subs or a combination of units.

While the Japanese ships are heading North the Anzacs get busy grabbing the money islands. The UK Pac are still trying to hold out or relieve Yunnan.

If the Japanese try to ignore this then the blockade will continue to grow each turn eating up Japan’s income.

Add to this a US factory in Korea + An aggressive Russia and China could reemerge as a threat based around Manchuria

I guess what I’m saying is that Japan can’t be everywhere at once. I always say attack where the enemy is weakest and then force them to do what you want. From turns 6-10 the naval blockade can be built up into a fullscale invasion force without a US ship ever going near Indonesia.

I like the outlines of your northern Pacific sub strategy here, but I think Japan has an obvious counter, which is to build 1 or 2 destroyers per turn. Yes, in the abstract, building DDs as Japan sucks, because it means fewer infantry. But Japan will have to do something to counter the US at some point during the game. If the USA goes all-out KG/KIF, then Japan has to rush an inefficient attack on Sydney or Honolulu or else send fighters to Rome to play defense. If the USA builds a huge surface navy, then Japan has to worry about matching it. Japan isn’t really ever going to have a 100% efficient game where every single IPC goes into delivering infantry to the mainland. The question is how much Japan has to spend on coping with America, and whether those assets are of any use later in the game.

Against a flood of American subs, Japan doesn’t have to spend much – 8 to 16 IPCs per turn – because the pre-existing swarm of planes can partner with the destroyers to take out even large stacks of American subs with minimal casualties. Subs are awful value on defense, and any surviving destroyers can either be (a) used again to kill more subs the next turn, or (b) used to escort lone transports, or © saved toward constructing a second fleet near Tokyo in case America builds surface ships in the endgame.

The northern Pacific sub strategy can work great against a Japan who ignores it (losing $20/turn) or who over-reacts to it (sending the entire Pacific fleet back to Tokyo), but a Japan who keeps his head and makes a modest investment in DDs can easily wipe out an early sub rush at a very small cost.

But remember any destroyers built in japans turn are attacked in the US turn. Only 3 scrambles can join battle. Destroyers must be taken as casualties because subs cant hit planes. Once no destroyers left planes cannot attack.

Us can also add in planes flying out of Aleutian islands or russia in order to keep the seas clear of destroyers.

@ShadowHAwk:

@simon33:

@thespaceman:

But remember any destroyers built in japans turn are attacked in the US turn. Only 3 scrambles can join battle. Destroyers must be taken as casualties because subs cant hit planes. Once no destroyers left planes cannot attack.� �

Us can also add in planes flying out of Aleutian islands or russia in order to keep the seas clear of destroyers.

Unless you’re talking about bombers, they can’t fly out of the Aleutians. You can fly off CVs though.

Still, if the USA are dominant enough to pull this off, I feel like it’s a missed opportunity to not take Korea. Unless there’s tonne of units on it I suppose.

You build the destroyers slightly out of range, now the subs stay out of the convoy zones or you just kill them.
If you place only 1 sub in SZ6 i can ignore it if you place 2 then ill sink them at maby the cost of 1 destroyer

1. The deal with the subs vs destroyers. Its not going to be 1 or 2. If US commits to building 2-4 per round then by turn 3-5 when the attack goes in its going to be 5,10 or even 15 subs. 1-2 subs is a minor nuisance for Japan and can easily be defeated. 10 subs is another story.

2. If Japan is using its mainland factories to relieve its home Islands then this has already achieved the purpose of the blockade which is to shut off Japanese production of ground units and shift their focus north away from Anzac and UK Pac. It also has stopped transports shuttling troops between Japan and China.

3. The Korea factory as opposed to taking money islands allows US + Russia working together to start to rebuild China. Once China can start to regrow its units safely in the north Japan is now under attack from 5 directions

1. UK-Pac in Burma/Yunnan
2. China
3. Russia from west and north
4. US from North East
5. Anzac from South East.

Japan no longer has a safe area and the mainland factories will soon be under attack.