Japan taking down ANZAC 1st?

Can be done. Game plays out okay… depends on how experienced the allies are and how smart anzac is at recognizing it and purchasing to defend.

I’ve had it happen to me once and I told US don’t bother liberate it and invade Japan. Japan did the most foolish thing, he split his navy up.

The invasion force is 3 or 6 boats with 6 planes and possibly 2 bombers…

Anzac starts with enough to hold if he buys right.

Usually what you do is take money islands then west Australia… Then fly in all planes to west Australia then hit. That is the easiest way… Usually you do that if USA is going Europe.

This is definitely an option if the US is not very active in the south Pacific or if ANZAC does not buy good defensive units in response to a Japanese navy in the Caroline Islands.  Sometimes you can get lucky as Japan and take out Sydney outright with a J3 attack, but usually the Allies see this coming and block it.  Another early option is to take Queensland first and then and then move south (suppossing the capital is poorly defended and an American navy won’t ruin the fun.)

Attacking ANZAC early relies on limited American involvement and liberal purchasing on Australia’s part.  If you are going to do this turn four or later, I would suggest Cow’s method through Western Australia and the outback.

I got ANZAC once first. Worked out pretty good in my game. Got Queensland first to open up the route, but kept a few troops on transports just in case I needed them. Overall, I’d say that hitting ANZAC first entails many risks vs the traditional approach of China and UK Pac.

I think the best chance for it to work is to not DOW on the Allies in the beginning in order to best get in position. However, this may mean that Japan is behind on other important objectives like the Money Islands. If getting the money Islands first, I think it’s darn near too difficult at that point to get ANZAC against a competitive player.

Iam with Cow on this idea that ANZAC is the focus after UK Pac has been dealt with first.

The main issue with going at ANZAC right off the bat is a long list.

• It is at the bottom of the board
• IF your starting forces cannot knock them out, well, now you have to start shucking units south.
• Japan is ignoring UK PAC and China on the continent and just getting stronger
• IF the initial assault does not work out then the USA can swing down from Hawaii and cause issues
• Even if you knock out ANZAC Japan is now in the central position. Do they fight USA heads up over Hawaii or go back to UK Pac and leave the back door open to the USA?

I can keep going on but will just leave it at this.

Wheatbeer recently tried this against me in the League.  Whilst the game isn’t over yet, I will say this strategy didn’t work out for him.

An all bomber USA build and some fancy fleet work ended up creating alot of problems for Japan.  And whilst he did own Calcutta for a turn later in the game, China is now making $20+ and Japan is licking its wounds.

I will say that Japan’s fleet is about 3x the size of the american fleetin the pacific, but the key strategic points are held by allied stacks.

Will try to remember to post how it ends here.

During our last game I was playing Japan and did a J1 Pearl Harbor.
As the ANZAC player was mainly investing in ships I thought, why not taking out ANZAC first?
I sunk the ANZAC Navy and took Queensland, but on the following turn, I did not score a single hit on Sidney and my ground units got wiped out by the hand full of Aussies.
:oops:

@PainState:

Iam with Cow on this idea that ANZAC is the focus after UK Pac has been dealt with first.

I don’t think anyone advocated ANZAC first?

Obviously UK Pac gets stronger as it’s left alone. But China not so much unless the 20 Siberian units come down and you want to deal with them instead of China.

I don’t prefer ANZAC first, but it worked out ok in one game. I think it was a Sea Lion game and I didn’t want to let the US into the war right away so I looked for other objectives which were China and ANZAC.

@Ichabod:

I don’t think anyone advocated ANZAC first?

Maybe read the subject?

I’ve pondered it also. Unless Axis are doing a sneaky naval take down of Hawaii as well, I don’t think it’s worth it. PainState has made a good post actually.

@simon33:

@Ichabod:

I don’t think anyone advocated ANZAC first?

Maybe read the subject?

I’ve pondered it also. Unless Axis are doing a sneaky naval take down of Hawaii as well, I don’t think it’s worth it. PainState has made a good post actually.

I did. Yet I still read no avocation for it; just some potential advantages to spark the discussion.

Of course we all see the advantages (and cons). I personally think ANZAC would be a much better objective than India first if executed well (meaning that China and India are still contained and don’t get out of hand). Money islands would also be better secured with a greater outer south pacific defense. However, it involves so much more risk that I would generally not think it a good idea. It’s a good thing to have in your tool kit against players you regularly play. Kind of like if you don’t ever follow through with Sea Lion and successfully execute it than on UK1 the player might not ever place 6 inf / 1 fighter on London.

Anz can be a tough nut to crack if they def well, but w/o US involvement can be taken down. However if the US is building mostly Pac it probably isn’t worth it. Reason being is that if you do take it then you have to def it, and that would take a lot of resources. Resources that you need to take money islands, and pressure India.

I will say though that when I do a J1 attack on the Pearl fleet that I’m in a pretty good position to hit Queensland on J3 (similar to what weddingsinger posted). J1 I have fleet at Wake and Phil, plus 3 new transports in sz6. J2 Wake fleet moves to Caroline’s, Phil moves to Malaya (to take it), and new transports can come down to Phil. Now all three of my navies can hit Queensland J3, or just go for the money islands. What happen next depends on how well the Anz is turtling, where the US is, and what they purchased.

In this scenario the US could still move up to Hawaii US1 if the Anz backs them up (cruiser and ftrs), because the Japanese probably won’t risk attacking the new multi-national Hawaiian fleet. Then the allies could be at Queensland (sz54) on turn 2 w/air cover, but they won’t be able to block out the IJN from all sides. Would the Japanese go all in at this point and attack the allies with everything they have? Haven’t run a sim on it, but it would be a bloody battle!

Good points.

I will only add that if/when the Allies lose Sydney, it is very hard to get it back.  It’s so far out of the way that any move to liberate can easily be seen, and Japan can start pumping units out to garrison it.

I think I’ve only once liberated Sydney from Japan, and that was when Japan was otherwise totally contained.

A few diverted USA pieces can make the difference, or perhaps dissuade Japan.  Problem is, Sydney is a VC and Japan has different paths to victory so he can always change the plan and take this extra, extra money from you.  If the ANZAC planes leave, they can’t always come back.

Then again, USA wants everything together, it cant spare 1 ship or 1 transport most of the time…tough choices for the allies

Good call SH, but ANZAC players have so many things they want to spend that money on, defense isn’t always on their mind…

Perhaps going ANZAC first is situational (duh, as if all things G40 aren’t). Example, you setup for a traditional J2 attack, but you see that the US response is to build almost completely on the Atlantic side with transports ect…for a landing on Normandy. Yes, those ships can come over to the Pacific, but it’s 1 extra turn away to be in attack position.
So on turn 2, you setup for a “traditional” J3 with a fleet at FIC w/naval base (which hopefully causes India to turtle) and a substantial fleet at Caroline’s Island with transports to not only “take islands,” but also to demonstrate to the US that they might not want to stack at Hawaii just yet since they’re determined to stick a landing.

You can even deploy Psychological Operations and tell your opponent at the start of Japan’s turn 2 that you decided not to declare war because Germany needs breathing room and that you’ll probably have to wait till J3. Perhaps this gets your opponent studying more on buying transports as opposed to thinking about Japan’s naval positioning that looks like a J3, but not quite the same.

Then J3 you spring into action and hopefully catch ANZAC off guard; but very likely you’ll have to get into position on J4 with transports loaded in the sea off the coast of Queensland (non-combat movements) for a J4 due to a blocker(s) somewhere. At which point it will be a battle similar to a Sea Lion where the odds are like 88-92% (very costly but doable). BUT, if the Allies’ positioning won’t permit ANZAC, Japan can still DO a more normal J3.

It’s the hardest Victory City to get for me, but I think it possible it offers tremendous reward. How often would I go for, probably not many times.

It’s not easy, you’ll probably lose most of China to the FEC, and you’ll have to start from scratch in South East Asia. You’re also giving the Americans free rein in the Pacific. It’s easier to take advantage of ANZAC’s low income to keep a small fleet in sz63, maybe conquer NZ and Solomons/NB, and keep them bottled up, while attacking Calcutta and US fleet.