Japan Pearl Heavy… 4 tpt buy?

what Hobbes is saying is 100% true.  But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia.  Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak.  Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.

very true my friend, but you cannot let japan cross the suez canal.

Another thought would be about which is going to be easier to replace for you country.  Subs are great fodder and replacing them is easier on the pocketbook than FIG’s or CV’s, and especially if you are Japan.  US can afford to usually replace that kind of loss, but most other countries can’t.

For 72 IPC’s, I’d go with a mix like ones mentioned earlier, with DD’s, CV’s (+FIG) & SS’s.  If split over a couple rounds, maybe SS/DD first in case of early strike

@ncscswitch:

To get THAT much Japan hardware in range of the US for J2 would mandate that Japan was effectively going KUSA, with commensurate loss of income in Asia.

Not really.

7 Infantry, 2 Fighters attack China with the two fighters coming from Manchuria and FIC.  These fighters can land in Japan.
3 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber attack SZ 52
Fighter, Infantry, Armor attack Hawaii

2 Fighters from the SZ 52 battle can land in SZ 45 on the carrier and battleship from SZ 37

now, without building a darn thing you already have:

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
6 Fighters
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
1 Submarine* (If it was not lost)

vs

1 Battleship
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
3 Fighters (Assumes the fighter was lost in Hawaii)
2 Aircraft Carriers

I did not give up anything in Asia, but I did station everything in range of America.  The transport in SZ 52 can easily pick up units in Solomons to attack Australia with two bombardments if I don’t need them.

Or, don’t attack Hawaii and add 1 fighter to the defensive forces, but don’t risk losing your infantry and armor in the process.

Odds:

Attacker: 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, Transport, Submarine, Destroyer, 6 Fighters (2 Fighters in SZ 52 can attack and land back on Wake), Bomber (assumed stationed at Wake where it can again land)

Defender: Battleship, 2 Carriers, Transport, Destroyer, 4 Fighters

(note, this does not take into account any builds for Japan that may or may not be in range of SZ 55.)

I have the Japanese winning over 99% of the time with losses of transport, submarine, 2 fighters.  I believe that is a rather good trading position for Japan.

If you want to call me an arrogant bastard, that’s fine, even accurate a fair amount of the time.  But call me an arrogant bastard because I’m an arrogant bastard, don’t misquote me!

i have no desire to call you that, nor was i offended by your post :mrgreen:

i apologise for poor emoticon use  :oops:

@ncscswitch:

The remaining fleet off Kwang is a nuisance to Japan, and requires that they do something about it… and with 2 rolls of 3’s, it has to be a fairly substantial something (at least 1 BB plus some air power or other navy).

There is no difference between a UK fleet near India or a UK fleet near Kwang when I play J…
their defending roll is still the same and both will perish someday…
Only nuissance they give?
you have to pay attention that no trannie goes unguarded…
but you always have to keep the latter in mind :-P
(with or without a UK fleet nearby)

GG are you there, so please answer my question. :-?

Variant 3 will make subs more or less useless against a Japanese fleet with at least one BB. So I think it is better to not mess up too much with the rules and vote for variant 2 or 1. In plain english, it is not worth fixing a rule that is supposed to fix another one. Things can get too complicated if one does! :wink: