US Pacific Strategy

No one is obliged to attack anything.  That’s not the point I was trying to make.  The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.

So why is that?

It’s not because there is a better target anywhere on the board.  It’s Japan 1, not like someone left 5 bombers open to an infantry attack.  So why don’t they do it?

Because the cost to Japan is astronomical.  Just a singular round of combat lower then predicted (and I’m talking as little as Japan getting hit one more then expected, or hitting one less target then expected) and the battle is lost for Japan.  It’s a VERY high risk, VERY low reward move.  It chews up a lot of high value resources and sinks a lot of worthless junk that England almost always never has on UK 2 anyway.

Let’s look at the prospects:

Japan attacks SZ 30:

Japan: 4 Fighters, Carrier, Battleship
England: Fighter, 2 Transports, Submarine, Destroyer, Carrier (note: Carrier dies last unless England is getting pounded, then fighter dies last)

Odds:  Japan wins with a Damaged Battleship and a Carrier (note: the carrier would have to die after the fighters due to landing zone issues.)

30% chance of Japan being wiped out.

That leaves Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, Submarine to hit SZ 52. (Assuming you use the bomber to support your infantry to take out the American fighter in China.)

Japan: Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, Submarine (Note the carrier in SZ 50 cannot be brought because it is dedicated for fighter recovery from SZ 30 battle, it can be moved after combat if the fighters have been lost in SZ 30 as expected.)
America: Submarine, Carrier, Fighter (in that order)

Odds: Damaged Battleship, lost Submarine and/or lost fighter as well.

So what does that leave Japan with?

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
Destroyer
1 or 2 Fighters

That’s a very large kick in the pants to Japan.  And don’t forget that one of those Battleships and Carriers is out in the middle of no where, assuming they live in the first place.

@Cmdr:

The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.

I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…

A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.

@ncscswitch:

Learned from bitter experience…
1.  Japan CAN kill the SZ30 fleet, but then the USA just goes KGF, and Japan sans 60% of its air power is too slow to do any damage to Russia.

Lol.  Come on, you should know you need air with Japan.  Either you need to defend KJF or you need to trade in Asia or you need to reinforce Ukraine/Caucasus . . . you need those fighters!

2.  Japan FAILING to kill the SZ30 fleet if they attack is DRT (Dead Right There) if the Allies go KJF

So why didn’t you strafe and pull back to SZ 38?  You don’t HAVE to kill the SZ 30 fleet.

3.  Ignoring SZ30 requires that Japan go TRN heavy on J1 and consolidate their fleet and prepare for a grind-out…

“Ignoring” SZ 30 or not, Japan should ALWAYS build 3 Trn on J1; can you give me the circumstances when 3 transports is a BAD idea for Japan, even if the Kwangtung transport survives UK1?  And just why would Japan “consolidate its fleet” - sounds like you’re talking defensively - when it should either do Pearl or SZ30 strafe or both?

4.  If a J1 attack on a UK SZ30 combined fleet goes VERY well for Japan, it leaves the Allies in a serious pickle…  Africa, Southern Asia, and the Pacific are all Axis controlled VERY quickly.

The odds though are for a far weaker Japan than is normal, a SLIGHTLY strengthened Germany, and a stronger Russia.  The gain for the Axis is insufficient to justify the prolonged income of Russia

And for those keeping track at home, that IS a change from my position a year or so ago…

So just what DO the Rus1 and UK1 turns look like?  Where’s that UK bomber?  What did the India fighter and Australian sub/transport do?

Strafing SZ30 is a problem in and of itself…

The FIC FIG, if it is brought to the battle, is DEAD no matter what (no range to leave SZ30)

So just  ATTACKING SZ30 guarantees that Japan will be shy almost 20% of their FIGs, regardless of the outcome of the SZ30 strafe and other battles.

@ncscswitch:

Strafing SZ30 is a problem in and of itself…

The FIC FIG, if it is brought to the battle, is DEAD no matter what (no range to leave SZ30)

So just  ATTACKING SZ30 guarantees that Japan will be shy almost 20% of their FIGs, regardless of the outcome of the SZ30 strafe and other battles.

Man, if you’re hitting 2 trns 1 sub 1 destr 1 carrier 1 fighter, with a battleship, a carrier, and fighters, you’d damn well better expect a fighter to bite it anyways.

You keep talking like losing fighters is something horrible Japan will never recover from.  It’s bitter, but if Japan obtains a better position by dropping fighters than it would by keeping its fighters, then obviously Japan should drop fighters.

Get what you want, and pay for it.

The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…

If Japan did a FULL consolidation in SZ30, then you have 2 TRN instead of 1 as Japan at the start of J1.  That is a nice advantage from the start for Japan.

If the Allies Consolidate, do the same as Japan…  Do Pearl Ultra-Light, take China, take Bury.  Build TRN and some INF.  Consolidate the Japan Fleet into 2 combat groups, with a straggler unit or two.

What does UK do then? 
Run Away to the Atlantic?  4 turns that the Axis gets to largely ignore those forces
Protect Australia?  The US better be spending money in the Pacific, or the UK Fleet is going to get sunk in short order with minimal Japan losses.
Shield/Counter Egypt?  You are going to run out of land units to transport in short order, leaving a UK fleet with no real threat in the Indian Ocean.

Against the SZ30 Unification, Japan simply builds TRNs (with the remainder as land units) and groups their starting fleets into 2 major clusters.  Anchored with 2 BB’s and 2 AC’s plus SIX starting FIGs, the UK fleet is pretty much worthless as an attack force against the Japs.  The only concern for Japan is a merge of the UK and USA forces… and a “fodder TRN” build J1 pretty much blocks that effort from the start.

@ncscswitch:

The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…

Man, I KNOES you aren’t talkin to me.

@ncscswitch:

@Cmdr:

The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.

I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…

A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.

I was not referring to you, however.  I never got a chance to use it against you, you stopped playing me when I demonstrated that KJF did not result in Germany reigning supreme over Russia in short order.

@Bunnies:

@ncscswitch:

The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…

Man, I KNOES you aren’t talkin to me.

That’s the only reason I DO a SZ 30 unification with England.  I want Japan to attack me.  Even if I lose worse than expected, man, the Allies come out on top!

A)  You don’t have enough to do Pearl now. Luckily no one caught my mistake so I can correct it myself, the forces I listed to attack SZ 52, if you hit SZ 30, CANNOT BE DONE.  The only units you can bring are Transport, Battleship, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber.  The reason is that the SZ 30 carrier is already designated to go to SZ 38 and retrieve surviving fighters, therefore it cannot ALSO be ordered to stand by and recover fighters from SZ 52.

B)  I’ll trade you some British units 4 rounds from the action for American units that can be used immediately against Japan to press the advantage.

C)  I’ll trade you 4 dead fighters with Japan to save an American fighter.  Especially since Japan normally doesn’t lose ANY fighters on Round 1!

@Cmdr:

@ncscswitch:

@Cmdr:

The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.

I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…

A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.

I was not referring to you, however.  I never got a chance to use it against you, you stopped playing me when I demonstrated that KJF did not result in Germany reigning supreme over Russia in short order.

Actually I stopped playing you for a completely different reason that shall remain unspecified here.

The attack is French Indochina fighter plus 2 East Indies sea zone fighters vs SZ 30; Caroline Islands sea zone fighter plus bomber sub and destroyer hit Hawaii’s sub/carrier/fighter.

As I wrote before, UK can do a vicious counter under some (even most circumstances) after Japan strafes SZ 30 then retreats to SZ 38. (Even with the vicious counter, I still do NOT recommend an all-out attack), and that’s assuming there’s no bad dice on the Jap 3 fig 1 carrier 1 btl vs 2 trns 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 carrier 1 fighter attack.

But it IS feasible to hit SZ 30 and still do Pearl and China - particularly under Low Luck.  Which I am not a fan of.

If you are sending 4 fighters, battleship, carrier to SZ 30 that does not exactly leave you in a good position for SZ 52.

You’ll have Submarine, Destroyer, Battleship, Transport and Bomber left to attack.  Win, sure.  But not strong enough to stop a counter attack.

China is still doable, however.

You can get 2 FIGs to SZ52 as well, if you want to send them.

@ncscswitch:

You can get 2 FIGs to SZ52 as well, if you want to send them.

But then you can only get 2 FIG to SZ 30.

@Cmdr:

If you are sending 4 fighters, battleship, carrier to SZ 30 that does not exactly leave you in a good position for SZ 52.

You’ll have Submarine, Destroyer, Battleship, Transport and Bomber left to attack.  Win, sure.  But not strong enough to stop a counter attack.

China is still doable, however.

I know; that’s why I wrote you hit Pearl with sub/destr/fig/bomb.  You chance more of your air, but you don’t lose your battleship on the counter.

Pffft, nobody reads my s*** anyways.

@ncscswitch:

You can get 2 FIGs to SZ52 as well, if you want to send them.

But then you cannot send 4 fighters to SZ 30, as was previously mentioned.  The problem is that carrier in SZ 50 cannot pull double duty and be ready to collect fighters from both SZ 52 and SZ 30, even if you know none of your fighters are going to survive, you still have to pretend you’ll win without loss, so no kamikaze pilots.

And Bunnies, you CAN send 1 fighter to SZ 52, but you’re shorting yourself a fighter in SZ 30 and that’s going to seriously risk the loss of both Carrier and Battleship in that battle.

Any way I cut it, you lose a battleship if you do BOTH SZ 30 and SZ 52.  Maybe I am just blind, but with the forces available, based on their start positions, I just don’t see a way you can seriously win all battles realistically. (Of course, there are the extreme cases, but we are not including those.)

Sorry, I forgot about the 2nd AC needing to declare movement to SZ30.

@ncscswitch:

Sorry, I forgot about the 2nd AC needing to declare movement to SZ30.

No prob.  I originally made that mistake as well when I out lined the tri-fecta attack plan, then realized my mistake whilst driving to work yesterday.

Easy enough mistake!

As to the original question a Battleship and carrier first turn followed up by a Battleship, transport and 2 Infantry the following turns can get real annoying for Japan real quick. Depending on how the starting US ground forces are used a sub can be substituted for a transport early.

a44:

I think you are tacking along the right path, but I feel you may be more interesting in two carriers, fighter on US 1 instead of Battleship, Carrier on US 1.

This gives you 4 fighters, 2 carriers, destroyer, transport in SZ 55 on US 1.

After that, I personally, think a battleship a round is a decent idea.  Eventually you’ll have enough battleships that you won’t be taking damage when hitting Japanese fleets. (Like round 8, but so what?)

I will have to try the 2 CV round one approach. My concern would be a lack of a BB hit early on .

I think the real beauty of the dedicated purchase is that it allows to go ahead and fight the battles earlier where you DO take losses to the Japanese. Your losses are already being replaced and if Japan is buying Navy that is pressure off Russia.

Two battleships and two transports can also be a tempting target for Japan and we all know how well the Liberty ships defend never might the tips.