Possible to make Western USA Fall?

Japan turn X move 10+ units from Japan to Western Canada and move 10+ units from Burytia to Soviet Far East.

Japan turn X + 1 take those 10+ units from Soviet Far East to Western Canada.

Add fighters and bomber and battleships for support.

Not (reasonable) capture of Western US given a good US response shuts the attack down, and a good or studied US player can even head off the impact some.  But in doing so, Japan can pull America’s attention away from the Atlantic for a good long time.

So it’s a reasonable MOVE in SOME cases (depending on the situation).

Won’t work.  Everyone is looking for the Canadian Shield style invasion. (Invade from Japan followed by reinforcements from Buryatia a round later.)

Invasion from the Solomons is almost never seen and when it is, as I said, you are at least in position to make your assault on other valuable targets.

Invasion from Buryatia/Japan, on the other hand, pulls your forces away and ties you up until it is defeated before the invasion begins or you start the invasion.

Even then, it’s very easy for America to stop Japan from taking W. USA because you have to stage in W. Canada.  Invasion from the Solomons START in W. USA.  You can feel free to accompany it with forces from Japan into W. Canada if you want. (Honestly, I’d follow it with invasion of Hawaii from Japan, this way you are again in position to hit New Zealand/Australia if America pulls a hat trick with the dice.)

Switch will remember that my partner, Mateo, and I won the 2 vs. 2 tourney when I did the Solomon Islands maneuver, our opponent missed it, and I grabbed Western US the next turn.  I simultaneously invaded Western Canada from Japan/Buryatia and the US was unable to re-take Western on its turn.  I then began building in Western and the Allies surrendered within a couple of turns.  That was sweet, and probably a 1 out of 1,000 game outcome, because it depends on the US player making a mistake.

@Gamer:

Switch will remember that my partner, Mateo, and I won the 2 vs. 2 tourney when I did the Solomon Islands maneuver, our opponent missed it, and I grabbed Western US the next turn.  I simultaneously invaded Western Canada from Japan/Buryatia and the US was unable to re-take Western on its turn.  I then began building in Western and the Allies surrendered within a couple of turns.  That was sweet, and probably a 1 out of 1,000 game outcome, because it depends on the US player making a mistake.

Closer to about 1 in 3 from my experience. :P

However, as I said, there’s no harm in setting it up.  If America sees it, then so what?  You just take Hawaii, New Zealand and Australia instead. If America does not see it, great!

@Cmdr:

@Gamer:

Switch will remember that my partner, Mateo, and I won the 2 vs. 2 tourney when I did the Solomon Islands maneuver, our opponent missed it, and I grabbed Western US the next turn.  I simultaneously invaded Western Canada from Japan/Buryatia and the US was unable to re-take Western on its turn.  I then began building in Western and the Allies surrendered within a couple of turns.  That was sweet, and probably a 1 out of 1,000 game outcome, because it depends on the US player making a mistake.

Closer to about 1 in 3 from my experience. :P

Who have YOU been playing???  I need THOSE kinds of opponents! :wink:

Honestly, what kind of opponent would miss a Japanese fleet in the Solomons threatening WUS (unless maybe you’re playing under some strict time limits)? If you bought factories on T1 and don’t need to land many units on the mainland, then your fleet has good business taking Australia and New Zealand, but if you are actually TRYING to invade WUS, the northern route has to be better.

For the reasons Jen and Bunnies posted above the southern route is better. The northern route is too obvious and takes to long to set up with the amount of forces needed to do anything against the western US.

@Gamer:

@Cmdr:

@Gamer:

Switch will remember that my partner, Mateo, and I won the 2 vs. 2 tourney when I did the Solomon Islands maneuver, our opponent missed it, and I grabbed Western US the next turn.  I simultaneously invaded Western Canada from Japan/Buryatia and the US was unable to re-take Western on its turn.  I then began building in Western and the Allies surrendered within a couple of turns.  That was sweet, and probably a 1 out of 1,000 game outcome, because it depends on the US player making a mistake.

Closer to about 1 in 3 from my experience. :P

Who have YOU been playing???  I need THOSE kinds of opponents! :wink:

Honestly, Gamer, I find the better players fall for it more often then the weaker players.  I think it is due to players getting cocky and assuming the game will follow the standard patterns of killing Germany or Russia first.

@a44bigdog:

For the reasons Jen and Bunnies posted above the southern route is better. The northern route is too obvious and takes to long to set up with the amount of forces needed to do anything against the western US.

Didn’t I pull this on you in one game this year, a44?

@ncscswitch:

Remember, she has the JENFORCES!

I’m only saying this once, usage of the term “jenforces” or any variant there of is being reported as flaming.  I believe the term started as good humor, but has devolved into a flame.

Yes you did in our first league game. In my defense I was in a bit of a hurry to post my turn, I also had a bit of target fixation going on with what I wanted the US to do in that game. I should have listened to the voice in my head that kept screaming buy ground units. I figured my units in place would hold which they almost did and again I was entirely too focused on the Naval aspects at the time.

No biggie it was a fun game and probably the strongest UK I have had in a game.

@ncscswitch:

I have received your Report to Moderator regarding your allegation that Jenforces is a flame.

Usage of the word JENFORCES is a meant to slander me for using fictitious units in game play

The above quote from your Report to moderator is in and of itself false.  “Jenforces” did not come about as a result of any fictitious units used in a game, but rather from forum strategy discussions.

To my knowledge, you have not used fictional forces in actual game play.  You have however engaged in strategy discussions where you have either used fictional units or have multi-tasked the same unit into multiple combats on the same turn, or deceased units that would certainly have died in an earlier combat…  It is one of the reasons I no longer engage you in strategy discussions.

I refuse to allow you to bait me into arguing with a moderator on the public forums.  It is a banable offense to argue with a moderator on the boards.

As Mr. NCSCSwitch has confirmed that the term IS USED to insinuate that I am using fictional forces in discussions, I feel justified in labeling it a flame.  Therefore, I would appreciate it if you, and everyone else, stop using the term Jenforces as it is a flame.  I have never used non-existent forces in either my strategic discussions nor in game play.

Since the only recourse we have as users against flaming or perceived flaming is to refer the offending post to the moderators, I will do so.

a44:

That’s the whole point of going the route to take down W. USA as I have listed.  If the US sees the attack, and anyone who looks at the board should see it readily enough, they can easily counter it with one round of ground units. (BTW, it does not even effect their game because those ground units can be used to fill transports later saving you the need to buy them later.)

However, sometimes America does miss it, and then it is a good idea to have the units available.  After all, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, 2 Battleships, 3 Transports, 5 Infantry, Artillery, Armor is not a lot to have at Solomons/SZ 45 on Japan’s turn.  (assuming this is Japan 2 of course, turn one being the sinking of the SZ 52 fleet at Pearl and putting some transports in SZ 60.)

Even if America sees the threat, and it is obvious by all means, you still have a good set up for taking out Australia, Hawaii and New Zealand.  After all, that’s 6 Infantry in three different battles you will have to take out, so the firepower will be needed in those attacks and not wasted. (I’d probably go 2 fighters, 2 infantry to New Zealand,  Fighter, infantry, armor, battleship to Australia and infantry, armor, fighter, battleship to Hawaii if W. USA got a troop surge.)

@a44bigdog:

For the reasons Jen and Bunnies posted above the southern route is better. The northern route is too obvious and takes to long to set up with the amount of forces needed to do anything against the western US.

So, to answer the original question in the topic: no it is not possible against a player who’s paying attention.

@Cmdr:

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you, and everyone else, stop using the term (edit) as it is a flame.  I have never used non-existent forces in either my strategic discussions nor in game play.

From this day forth, then, let them be known as . . .

Teh BUNNEHFORCES!

Heh heh . . . . they’re MINE now.  You can’t have them back!  HAHAHA!

–

Wow, the moderators sure are rude around here.  Good thing I didn’t get attached to this place.

Impressive. Most impressive. Obi-Wan has taught you well. You have controlled your fear. Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy me.

@Complexity:

@a44bigdog:

For the reasons Jen and Bunnies posted above the southern route is better. The northern route is too obvious and takes to long to set up with the amount of forces needed to do anything against the western US.

So, to answer the original question in the topic: no it is not possible against a player who’s paying attention.

a44bigdog, when I say “I think the southern route is better”, then I say “the southern route is better”.  But I did not say that.  FRICKIN MISQUOTE!  (blam blam!)  ah hh violence . . . feel better now . . .

Complexity:  F***, that’s what I said in the first place!  It’s SITUATIONAL.

@Rakeman:

Wow, the moderators sure are rude around here.  Good thing I didn’t get attached to this place.

If you are new here, you’ve come in very late in the play and all the good exciting stuff has happened so I wouldn’t judge anyone on the closing scenes you’ve just witnessed.

I won’t even venture a guess at story synopsis either as goodness knows, some know it all my report me for slander or the such… it’s been a bit whimsical about here lately.

Which is exactly why I think the southern route is better.

a) It’s not as obvious what you are doing.  (This does not mean it is not obvious, just not AS obvious as having 5 transports in SZ 60, 5 infantry, 5 armor in Japan and 5 infantry, 5 armor in Buryatia with the rest of your fleet in SZ 60 for support.  Then you KNOW something is up!)

b)  Your forces are not stuck in no man’s land.  You are in a good position to exploit your enemy if they fail to defend W. USA or to take out 3 primary targets of Japan anyway.

c)  It doesn’t cost you anything.

The northern route is blatantly obvious.  Especially after the CSUB paper describing Canadian Shield. (Maybe after excitement about that goes away in a few years it may be more viable as a sucker punch) It ties up your forces, I mean you’re held back to SZ 60, Japan and Buryatia, what, exactly, are pushing into Russia to press the battle?  And if America sees the threat and moves to thwart it, you are not in a position to do anything, you’re going to have to move your units to SZ 45 to hit New Zealand and Australia anyway.

So why run the risk?  Just go for SZ 45 and set up the trifecta as a backup plan if W. USA becomes Fortress America (pun intended, I love the FA game!)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10142.0