Weasels in Alaska - A Hypothetical

Daft is a word I hear on TV.  If it’s PG enough there, figured it was okay here. :P

Anyway, the 10 infantry, 2 armor build is what I would build as America anyway.  I like having extra ground forces in Canada in case i need to suddenly put ships in the water or build replacement planes later, then I’m covered!

That’s why I said I’m not blowing a dang thing on Alaska.  If it presents itself as an easy win and doesn’t detract on my march to Berlin, I’ll grab it.  If it does, I’ll ignore it.  Defending Moscow is worth 8 IPC.  Defending Alaska is worth 2 IPC to a nation that can afford not to have it for a round or two.

I wouldn’t leave 2 fig in sz63. They are worth a lot more in Asia. I’d just land 1 inf every turn and let the BB’s work their magic. But, since I usually base my Japanese bomber out of Bury, I might be inclined to land 2 inf with the bomber and BB support if the US had 1 or 2 units in Alaska. All I would really care about in this situation is getting my BB kills and some Matthew Lesko money if Alaska is lightly defended. Makes the US bleed off units early that normally would be going toward Germany.

@Cmdr:

Daft is a word I hear on TV.  If it’s PG enough there, figured it was okay here. :P

the word of the day today is DAFT
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/daft

:-) :-o :lol: :-P :wink: :roll:

you’re daft, mate.

now pop another shrimp on the barbie

crikey!

3. Scot. merry; playful; frolicsome.

That’s news to me. =)

I meant nutso, off your rocker, not playing with a full deck of cards, one fry short of a happy meal. 8-)

This move could be a very good one,

If right handled in my eyes,

The reason why:

• If the USA needs to turn their face around,and fight on own soil, they can not support Russia in their fight there.

But this leaves also the east of Russia a bit more quite,

Good move?
IF Germany is alive and kicking hard, They could just put so much pressure on Russia that Russia should not even have the possibility to watch east.

But, Japan needs enough IPC to support both fights, with Russia and USA, Russian fight doesn’t need that much anymore, Every turn 2 inf, or 3, moving to front lines can keep the Russians stand back, while you gain USA IPC.

Most likely, the USA will not react right away, it is just Alaska, but this depends on the player,
If the USA doesn’t respond right away, prepare 2 trans with 3 inf and 1 tank, and if you can spare it, also a fighter.

Just for 2 IPC? It is more to take the heat of Germany for a while, and many times it happens that the pacific is very silent during the war in Europe, so resistance will come later.

Also attack Wcan? Well Alaska can only be reached by that territory, and Wcan can be reached by several, so you are getting on hotter ground there, only attack in my eyes if you are confident, and have enough units to eventually get killed there.

Because the USA has got a bit more IPC than Japan, So once they see it’s a real threat, they will most likely spent the most they can, (so around 7 INF and 2 Armor?) on you…

Run!

I think it is fun for the game, and it could really help out Germany, but it’s not much worth for Japan, only if the US keeps silent, you can just stay with 2 inf in Alaska, but don’t attack more, you will be shot down.

Okay, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying if this is a good or bad move for Japan.  The question was posed how to handle it and I, personally, think the best option is to ignore it until you have extra forces to deal with it, or, you could try to use it to exploit Japan and remove some pressure from Russia.  Note, Japan has not a chance in all of Hell, MI of taking out America before Russia falls in MOST games, so it’s not a huge deal for you to match him unit for unit in W. Canada/Alaska.  But, given that Japan knows they don’t have a chance in hell, they probably will leave it with 1 infantry there or abandon it where you can move in easily later to get it.

Now, from Japan’s standpoint.  If America’s building in E. Europe and only has infantry in E. Canada, a strong landing in Alaska/W. Canada (same sea zone) may serve a very strategic purpose of getting America worried that you are trying to over throw them on their own soil and thus get them to pull back from landings in Europe and Asia and Africa.

Now, from Japan’s standpoint.  If America’s building in E. Europe and only has infantry in E. Canada, a strong landing in Alaska/W. Canada (same sea zone) may serve a very strategic purpose of getting America worried that you are trying to over throw them on their own soil and thus get them to pull back from landings in Europe and Asia and Africa.

My point indeed. Can’t agree more with ya.

I meant in E. USA, not E. Europe.  If America’s building in E. Europe, games over! :P

@Cmdr:

I meant in E. USA, not E. Europe.  If America’s building in E. Europe, games over! :P

Now you mention, it is indeed a bit weird the US building things in E. Europe,

Would say that the game was far gone by that time. :P

The Alaska/WCan landing is best timed for TWO turns before Japan and Germany launch their 1-2 strike on Moscow; to prevent the Americans from landing heavily in a German rear area.  Units in Japan two turns prior to a Moscow attack cannot reach Moscow for the fight anyway, so may as well prevent America from going after Western Europe…

I concur.  Which is why I think America should ignore Alaska if Japan invades.  Keep your eyes on the target.  The target is to prevent the Axis from out numbering the combined armies until you are staged to destroy one axis power and leave Russia defended enough to keep the other power from killing it.

You cannot do that from Alaska.

@trihero:

The Japanese decided to be annoying, and they landed 2 inf in Alaska on J2 (which was vacant), and they guarded the transport with 2 battleships and a carrier (with 2 fighters). Whether or not this is a good move for the Japanese is not the point; the point is that you have to deal with it as the Americans. (but feel free to discuss too whether this is a good move or not for the Japanese, it’s not like we always stay on the point here do we  :lol:)

Your US build 1 was a carrier, 2 tran, 3 inf and 1 art on the US East Coast. Currently you have 3 inf in W. Canada, 2 fighters in E. Canada, 1 fighter/1bomb in UK, and the rest of your men are on the US East Coast (well, the AA gun from the W. Coast is still there, but otherwise unoccupied)

What is your decision, commander? Of course, you will be building some men on the West Coast - how many? Do you decide to contest Alaska with 2 inf yourself every turn + airplanes? Some variation? Or not at all? Keep in mind that the Japanese have 2 bb shots every turn, and discuss your answer. (I don’t have a fixed answer in mind). The Japanese will continue to attempt to assault Alaska with 2 inf + fighters + bb shot every turn unless you either present a threat to their navy or stack Alaska high enough that it no longer becomes worth it. They will also stop bringing men if you don’t contest it (that means they will sit 2 inf on there and send their transport back until you start contesting again). What will you do, commander?

As Japan I would build IC in Alaska, move to WCA after building up enough frontline strength, then capture LA and building from
WUS instead of Alaske, move to CUS, take Washington and do weasel war dance!!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bq3_OMz7CMU

@trihero:

Which is why I think America should ignore Alaska if Japan invades.

Cool! A quick way to add +2 income to Japan without sailing far away to exotic areas like Madagascar.

Yup, and you’d have to invest at least 6 IPC a round stacking it with a capital ship and a pair of transports tied up to keep it too.  Otherwise, I’ll eventually have enough extra units to walk in and take it back at my convenience without interrupting my train to Europe.

Lucifer:

I think you’re nuts.  An IC in Alaska is not going to get you Los Angeles.  America’s pumping out 10 ground units a round in W. USA moving to W. Canada to E. Canada and transporting 6 to 8 of them a round out.  That’s +2 units a round extra that are building up in W. Canada, more if you wanted to produce more.

That’s the whole point.  Alaska is a money sink for Japan.  It doesn’t hurt the United States because the United States just keeps going with their plans, and when they have enough extra units, they take Alaska back.  That could be in one turn or 20 turns.  But it will eventually happen.

However, if the United States is stupid enough to stop their train just to take Alaska they have a two round delay.  One to back out of Alaska and another to get to E. Canada to be transported.  2 Rounds without the biggest income winner the Allies have (in most games) may really give a good advantage to the Axis, especially when timed right.

But I think you’re nuts if you think 2 infantry a round in Alaska is going to do anything for you.  If anything, putting an IC in Alaska would result in the loss of Alaskan income every round since it’s not worth defending with an AA Gun.

My war weasels will dig tunnels and attack LA from below….
They will hook up with the Chinese in Chinatown, and they will send a clear message:
Resistant is futile!
Then LA will surrender, and Japan can build 10 inf each rnd, US will never take it back  :evil:

@trihero:

Yup, and you’d have to invest at least 6 IPC a round stacking it with a capital ship and a pair of transports tied up to keep it too.  Otherwise, I’ll eventually have enough extra units to walk in and take it back at my convenience without interrupting my train to Europe.

No, I’ll just leave 2 inf there and only counterattack if I can do so and capture it with 2 inf again. I have no reason to invest 6 IPCs a round, I’ll let you do that for a few rounds and then retake Alaska, I don’t care. A few rounds at +2 to Japan and -2 to the Americans is a nice bonus. It will tie up your extra IPCs, meaning nothing in addition to the plain shuck shuck.

Okay, you hold Alaska for two rounds, it then falls to the 6-8 extra units I have in W. Canada.  How do you retake it?  And the -2 is so painful to me when I am already building too many units to fill all my transports.  Okay.  For a round or two I don’t buy my annual fighter.  Whoopy.  I’m not diverting forces I need in Europe to stop Moscow from falling so I can deny Japan their money sink.

@trihero:

That’s the whole point.  Alaska is a money sink for Japan.  It doesn’t hurt the United States because the United States just keeps going with their plans, and when they have enough extra units, they take Alaska back.  That could be in one turn or 20 turns.  But it will eventually happen.

It’s actually a money sink for the Americans - all their extra IPCs will be spent until they have enough units to recapture and hold Alaska. All I did was throw a couple of inf in there, not adding any more; the Americans are spending their extra effort building up until they can hold it permanently. I will throw more if you have say 1-2 inf in Alaska only, but that’s at better gain to me because of BB shots. You need to retake it with like 5 or so inf to hold it permanently. That may or may not be significant in itself, but the IPC income difference adds up for those rounds it took you to get enough extra inf.

No.  America has extra units at all times.  This is so they can quickly build nothing but fighters if they lose a significant portion and not lose transported unit efficiency.  All you have done is waste 6 infantry for the maximum possibility of having +4 IPC.

Please, what is worth more:

1 Transport + 2 Infantry for 2 IPC in Alaska

or

2 American infantry used to liberate Alaska?

No, you probably wont lose the transport, but you have lost the use of the transport while you moved there.

14 IPC’s worth of equipment lost to Japan (Usable, not necessarily destroyed)
6 IPC worth of equipment lost to America (Usable, not necessarily destroyed)

2 IPC land value.

Who’s sinking money into worthless conquests in the far corners of the world?

And you can categorically forget ever getting to W. USA from Alaska.  You’d have to devote the entire Japanese war machine to piling the hell out of Alaska for the feinting hope of maybe getting good dice and cracking the American defense.  Of course, 100% asset allocation to North America would effectively stop America from helping in Europe at all.  But it won’t win Japan North America.  All it will do is help Germany beat Russia and it would only be somewhat effective if England gave up Africa like some of you have recommended they do in the other thread so they can put a fighter in SZ 52 (where it will be destroyed) and sink a transport (ending up in the destruction of the majority of your surface fleet).

Remember Jen is always right.

I must work harder.

• paraphrased from “Animal Farm”