Thanks for detailing the force allocation.

3 Inf vs 1 Defending Inf is a 90% battle? That doesnt sound right IMO but my statistics could be a little off. :)

If that is truly correct, then that doesnt sound too bad. Not sure I like 3 Inf from Manchuria though, particularly if Russia has stacked up just north of you. You have to leave at least 1 behind then or else they take Manchuria for free and you MUST take it back, which is turning troops and resources the wrong way IMO.

Beyond that it all looks pretty much what I do. The only real difference is that I only allocate 1 Fighter to San Fran and I send 3 to Pearl. Your worst odds attack is against a high priority target (granted just barely worse, but a 4 defense with 2 hits has the most pontential for luck screw IMO).

I guess until you see the US mess with Japan with subs you dont understand the threat. :) If you build a DD on J2, then it cant move till J3. By that time the subs can be almost anywhere they need to be. And that really limits the mobility of your CVs since the thing you do NOT want is to see a Sub vs CV/Fighters being a battle in the Sub’s favor! That is just too ugly to contemplate IMO and it means your CVs are stuck at home(ish) on J2. Also building it J2 means you have to leave at least a CV home to guard it on J2 anyways. You cant even realistically threaten the US fleet at San Fran or any of their islands (for their NO) until you have the DD present with the CVs. That gives the US way too much breathing room IMO since he KNOWS you cant commit (without suicide, I guess). What it comes down to is since Japan moves before the US, failing to build the DD on J1 means you are ceding the initiative back to the US.

The Pacific is REALLY well done in this edition. There are a lot of nuances that it took a few games for our group to catch. But now that we have, its an ugly, ugly (but fun!) fight all across the Pacific.

Interesting stats page. Where is that from, if you dont mind? That looks to be pretty handy. :)

As for Manchuria, If they put 3-4 Inf in there, you have to take it back. Its not only a loss of your NO, but its an NO for the Brits. I suppose if you are building your TR and Inf on J1, its not as big of a problem because then you have a little more ground firepower available to take it out. But again, that means no DD and that means a passive game in the Pacific for the first few rounds.

I’ll have to experiment a bit with pounding Russia and the coastline first rather than trying to remove the US NOs and/or taking Australia/India/Hawaii for the 3rd Japanese NO. Without the DD, I’d be really careful sending stuff to Australia as it can become trapped (or else has to flee very far out of position).

My default Japanese strat has been to plan on taking Australia and/or India on J2. If the US goes with a semi-weak naval build, I can take Hawaii or 2 of the 4 islands needed to remove their NO. If the US makes a major commitment, I match it and continue to pound the Brit holding and push into China until the US comes out to play. Okinawa becomes a pivotal place to have a few light elements in that case so I tend to have more DDs and SS’s on tap in that position. After that it really comes down to how the US has built and if we’ve fought any skirmishes to that point. Since I build a DD on J1, I can freely have my CVs in the Mid or South Pacific without too much worry. Without the DD, I’d have to change up and play a bit more passively.

Well at the very least I think we’ve proven that there is at least SOME potential for variety in J1. ;)

Finally, don't forget that Submarines are almost completely worthless in Anniversary.  They cannot stop ships from moving through sea zones.  They cannot defend for squat and they subtract IPC you could be spending on real naval units.  The only thing submarines are good for is slipping through enemy lines to hit transports if the enemy doesn't put a destroyer in the way.  I wouldn't worry about getting "trapped" down in Australia.  You can just drive right on past those submarines, no questions asked! (BTW, they don't stop transport from loading or unloading, they don't stop ships from bombarding.  In other words, they may as well not even exist as far as the game is concerned.)

Submarines are IMHO the best naval attack vessel in the game and not so bad in defence too. Every fleet should have its share of them, even if its just to soak up enemy hits. The only exception is if you do not ever expect to attack - in this case the destroyer should take the role of cannon foder.

If it weren’t for defending transport units, i would even recommend building only subs.

Wow, submarines can be FAR FAR more effective in the Pacific than DDs for the simple facts that planes cannot hit them (without a DD present) and more importantly, that sub hits cannot be applied to planes at all (regardless of DD presence). This makes them CV killer in the extreme. If you havent witnessed that, its no surprise you dont advocate a J1 DD build. :)

Also, DDs are vulnerable to enemy CVs which are 3 spaces away. Subs are immune to anything that doesnt have a DD within 2 spaces. This gives them greater freedom to operate.

Keep in the mind the combat sequence. The Defender has to select casualties before rolling their defense. This means that if you have subs present, he might take a higher value casualty to keep a DD alive to prevent first strikes in a following round (or to allow aircraft to hit in later rounds). For example if you have a BB, CA and DD (and a few TRs present) and a bomber and 3 subs attack. If the attacker hits twice, what do you pick? Obviously the BB soaks up 1, but then what? If you pick the DD, then on round 2, any sub hits are going kill without allowing a strike back (meaning potential loss of all the TRs). Rather than risk that, you might lose the CA instead of the DD. As another example, take a CV w/ 2 Fighters, a CA, and a DD. If the enemy attacks with 3-4 subs on round 1 and hits only once, what do you take? Its got to be the CA. What if he hits twice? Again, the CA and the DD, but if you fail to wipe him out with return fire, you are left with a single 2 to defend against a 2 that first strikes. Not a pretty sight for a TF that costs 54 vs one that costs 18 to 24…

Finally, SSs are cheaper hits in naval combat and they attack just as well as DDs (better if there is no DD present because First Strike can be extremely powerful). Subs are EXTREMELY effective combatants if used correctly. And if you dont have proper DDs for support you could lose a LOT of money in CVs/Fighters from lowly 6 ipc units… Either that, or you have to spend a lot of time running and that is a waste of time that is often critical.

Dont get me wrong, DDs are great units too. But they are certainly not ‘better’ than subs in any way, shape, or form in the Pacific. They are different and both have important roles to play.

@Cmdr:

frood.net is where I get most of my stats from.

Thanks! I’ll check it out

If Russia liberates Manchuria it is NOT a National Objective for England.  You have to take an orange territory for England to get that National Objective.

I dont see why. Is that in the FAQ or some obscure ruling? The Brit NO simply says 'Gain 5 IPCs if Allied powers control any territory originally under Japan’s control. Manchuria starts under Japan’s control so why would it not count for the Brit NO?

Finally, don’t forget that Submarines are almost completely worthless in Anniversary.  They cannot stop ships from moving through sea zones.  They cannot defend for squat and they subtract IPC you could be spending on real naval units.  The only thing submarines are good for is slipping through enemy lines to hit transports if the enemy doesn’t put a destroyer in the way.  I wouldn’t worry about getting “trapped” down in Australia.  You can just drive right on past those submarines, no questions asked! (BTW, they don’t stop transport from loading or unloading, they don’t stop ships from bombarding.  In other words, they may as well not even exist as far as the game is concerned.)

See above post on Subs. :) I find that they are hardly worthless in AA50 and in fact, they are quite powerful if used correctly. You cant really ‘drive right on past them’ if that leaves them in attack position and you have no DDs. Pound for pound, they will tend to shred most other naval mixes.

They cannot hit battleships and carriers since you can elect not to receive submarine hits on those units

I’m 99% sure this is incorrect. I cant see anything the rules that even remotely implies this. If that were to be the case, then yes, subs woulld be quite useless. But I seriously doubt that is correct and that means that subs are quite effective. :)

The ruling, last I heard, was that to get the National Objective the allies had to control any orange territory.

That would limit you to:

Carolines
Formosa
French Indo-China
Iwo Jima
Okinawa
Japan

Territories that start as conquered territories do not count since you are not taking a Japanese territory, you are liberating someone’s territory. would indeed be pretty useless.

Interesting. Again, I cant see why this would be case. The NO doesnt require taking Japanese territory, but simply occupying territory Japan originally controlled. And by the definition of ‘control’, they certainly ‘control’ Manchuria at the start of the game. Do you know where that ruling is from?

Jenn is incorrect on Subs, they can hit CVs and BBs. That probably is from one of the other flavors of A&A she plays.

Jenn is correct about the Chinese territories and the NO. That has been answered if not in the FAQ then I think by Krieghund some where around here.

And even if subs can hit capitol ships they are still a junk unit. I am sorry it is hard for me to get stoked up about a unit that attacks at 2 and defends at 1.

Interesting.

Unless I’m missing it, that frood.com doenst have a combat calculator for A&A50 yet, right? I’d be REALLY interested to see the way subs stack up in combat in those sims.

Apart from that, I can only look at it from a quick analytical point of view. And to me, it appears that subs can be terrifying if used properly. The lack of ability to hit planes is not necessarily a disadvantage IMO. It means that once the DDs are gone, the next thing on the list has a minimum IPC cost of 12 and it goes up from there.

Subs simply threaten surface fleets. And that makes them potent IMO. Just avoid DDs within 2 spaces and you can go wherever you want. Stray DDs are easily brought down by BBs or airpower. I just really think that ability to avoid airpower (both attacking and being attacked) cannot be overstated. But I guess YMMV :)

@Cmdr:

Actually, once defending submarines are gone then defending destroyers are gone, you can damage battleships and then you can hit cruisers, assuming you survive that long, you probably wont.

Generally speaking, I have yet to be “terrified” of a submarine in AA50.  I’ve laughed, I’ve laughed so hard I cried, I giggled to the point of a guffaw at them, but I’ve not been terrified!

I’ll point out:

10,000 Submarines vs 1 Destroyer and 4,999 Bombers (almost same cost) should result with:

3,333 hits from the attacker
1 hit from the defender

Cost to the attacker: 8 IPC
Cost to the defender: 19,998 IPC

Still like your submarines?

Even though I agree with you Jen, you do have to take in consideration that a smart player would watch out for DD’s. (would that be a contradictio in terminis? “A smart player buying 10k subs…” )
If there would be no DD (because a smart one would take it out, or stay out of it’s range), you could attack 2500 AV’s, all loaded with fighters (5000).

Those 5k fighters are useless, and with your surprise kill you could get 3300 kills (subs hit at 2 right?). The vessels that you actually kill, don’t get to fight back.

More convenient is that those 5000 fighters will go down as well, as there is no ground underneath their feet…

Now thát could make a sub useful…
And with only 6 or 7 IPC, every 2 subs = 1 CV.

It depends on the number of subs but DDs alone do not deter an attack.

Consider this:

Attacker: 6 subs
Defense:  2 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs (def has no island to land on)

Round 1 - 2 hits to 4 hits

Round 2 - 2 subs vs. 2 ac, 4 ftrs?

Now the ftrs can’t shoot back? 
and it is essentally 2 subs vs. 2 ac.  Not a bad battle there.

Or did the Def lose an AC the previous turn?  If that is the case you can retreat and not only sink an AC but down two ftrs for free.

Granted this is a bit simplistic but assuming you can get the subs in range you might be able to create some OOL problems for your opponent.

If you expect large scale naval battles (Jap vs. US).  It is nice to buy some cheap fodder (4 subs for 24) assuming you already have your heavy hitters.  Even though they defend at 1, sometimes you just need the numbers, esp when you have 1-2 dd and a couple loaded ACs.  IMO they make sense for the US if you are going to be aggressive in the Pac, since they are a nice cheap attacking unit.
Why spend 8, when 6 will do?
If you are agressive, at some point you need to sink Japan’s 3 ACs, 1 BB plus whatever else they buy, and subs attack just as well as DDs so you’ll probably want to go with cheapness and numbers.

This was my first turn as Japan in my latest game.  I won all the battles, but lost the DD at Pearl and only a few inf overall.  It went really well.

Buy 2 trns, 1 inf.

Attack:

Bor - mt vs. 1 inf (car via trn)
Sum - mt vs. 2 inf (car via trn)
Sz 53 - bb vs. dd (sz 51), 2 ftrs (sz 57)
Sz 56 - trn, dd vs. 2 ftrs (sz 57)
Sz 35 - trn, dd vs. 2 ftrs (sz 61)
Yun - 1 inf, 1 ftr vs. 3 inf (fic), 2 ftrs (man, for)
Sui - 1 inf vs. 3 inf (man)
Hup - 1 inf vs. 3 inf (kia)
Kwa - 1 inf vs. 1 inf, 1 rt (sz 61), 1 ca (sz 61)
Sz 50 - trn, dd vs. 1 ftr (jap), 1 bb (sz 61) [1 trn with 2 inf from sz 61, 1 trn with 1 inf oki, 1 arm jap] - ftr will land on ac moving from sz 57 to 60 if needed
Phil - 2 inf vs. 3 inf, 1 arm (sz 61, oki, jap)