Brainstorming: What's the best way to kill the Japanese Fleet?

@wodan46:

I’ve developed a new KJF plan.  2 CV and a Fighter are not even close to enough.  By the end of Turn 3, the Allies have a large fleet in Indonesia, 10 Bombers on standby in various locales, and have dropped Japan’s economy by somewhere between 16-25 while giving the Allies a needed infusion.  On Turn 4, the Japanese Fleet will be gone, and Japan  possibly SBRed.  At this point, Japan is pretty much a non-player, and while capturing Japan may be hard, at this point you hardly need to.  While Germany might take Russia and Italy might take Africa/Middle East, they can’t even match the Allies in income, let alone hope to keep what they have and somehow grab VCs in the Pacific.

@wodan46:

At the end of Turn 3, in the East Indies/Borneo/New Guinea/Sea Zone 39, there will be 3 Carrier Groups, 1 Battleship, 2 Destroyers, and 4 Transports.  There will also be 6 Bombers in East Asia, 4 in Australia, and 4 in West US.  Is that clear enough for you?

i think FighterCommander may have been implying about the how in, how do you get those forces over there by the end of Turn 3.  There’s only one Allied CV to start in the Pacific, and adding two more means building them and picking their way through an active pacific where Japan is threatening (or could control) the islands you mentioned (and Australia & India) and sea zones by the end of turn 3.

I am guessing it involves Japan not taking out any of the Allied ships on J1-3 so that they only have to build 100 IPCs of Ships and fighters and 120 IPCs of bombers and get them over there by T3 to do it.  Throw in a UK IC somewhere and crank out the troops and Japan is down 16-25 for income.  sounds pretty automatic to me…I’m sold.  oh yeah…

I want to know when the Allies liberated Australia that fell on J2 to park those 10 bombers on.

@wodan46:

Builds
B3: ???

Is this because 2 FIG from SZ 61 sunk the DD/TRN on J1 (99% win), as well as Borneo and E Indies falling.  Then on J2, Australia was lost as well as the 4 FIG in FIC sinking the CV/BB/TRN off India while not building any ground troops to protect the IC?  Sets up a J3 landing in India.  Dang it’d be nice to have some bombers…

good try.  try again.

also allied shipping will move in range of jap air/naval and will likely be sunk.

:lol:

playtest this dude!

rofl

@atarihuana:

playtest this dude!

I offered to play him a game here on the forums to test some of these so called strategies. Haven’t heard an answer back.

And what US fleet is going to sink At a minimum a loaded carrier a cruiser and a battleship in seazone 39 off of Australia on US 2. Although Normally I like to have 2 CVs there so it would take an even bigger fleet.

Australia is best grabbed by Japan when they are out and about in the Pacific. It is hard for the Allies to liberate as well. An India IC is no REAL threat to Japan. Japan can produce 8 units, Manchuria 3, Kiangsu or FIC 2,  all that compared to India’s 3?

wodan46 you do good as far as thinking outside of the box. That can be a good thing. However without testing one can never know the value of ones ideas. And then when active players point out obvious flaws in your strategies you rarely adapt to them just offer up more unrealistic situations.

The biggest problem with sinking that fleet is the large defensive power of it, combined with if it takes you too long to sink it there factories are already running so its pointless.  You truly have 2 options.  1) build up to hopefully slow down japan as they match you in builds or 2) take back the south pacific, to hell with there fleet.  If you really think about it there fleet is a defensive monster, but not that great on the attack, use that to your advantage to take islands.  Subs and carriers are great for this as the subs keep them away and the carriers defend against the strafe.  A transport is the deadliest weapon in the pacific, use it.

yes and because of exessive typing u write long posts justifying yourself :D

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

Is this because 2 FIG from SZ 61 sunk the DD/TRN on J1 (99% win), as well as Borneo and E Indies falling.

That is a given.  I assume that the Axis sinks as much fleet as possible, which means that Egypt and Karelia can’t be taken first turn.

who cares about Egypt and Karelia 1st turn in terms of how does this affect Japan/Pacific actions…  First off, how do 4 Jap fighters affect Karelia?  I’ll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you meant some other territory.  Secondly, take Egypt turn 2. 
my point is that there is no Allied ships off India to help protect your turn 2 UK builds there.

@LuckyDay:

Then on J2, Australia was lost as well as the 4 FIG in FIC sinking the CV/BB/TRN off India while not building any ground troops to protect the IC?

4 Fighters vs. CV/BB will end with all 4 Fighters dead, and the CV/BB still alive.  You have a spare Fighter in India anyways most likely.

4 FIG vs CV/BB is 28% chance 3 fighters left, 68% 2 fighters left.  ran it 10,000 times. 
If you moved a fighter to India it didn’t land on the Carrier, but in India, that won’t affect the sea battle.  Not that it matters, since you were so concerned about not taking Egypt, that fighter you would have most likely left there to defend.

@wodan46:

I told you that I am unwilling to play on the forums, it would require excessive typing.  I have had a strained arm limiting my ability to do things for about a month now, and am not willing to strain it even worse when I should be resting it.

@atarihuana:

yes and because of exessive typing u write long posts justifying yourself :D

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wodan,
you’ve only been posting on the forum since Feb. 4, 2009 and you have 170+ posts and you are worried about excessive typing?

@wodan46:

@a44bigdog:

Australia is best grabbed by Japan when they are out and about in the Pacific. It is hard for the Allies to liberate as well. An India IC is no REAL threat to Japan. Japan can produce 8 units, Manchuria 3, Kiangsu or FIC 2,  all that compared to India’s 3?

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.  Things won’t go too well for them then, even if Manchuria is useless to the allies.

Japan doesn’t even start with Burma, so if they don’t take it, but take Yunnan J1, how can UK or even China take it back?  And since you are spending all your UK money on the IC UK1 and boats UK2, you don’t have any extra UK forces there (or Russian) to help take Burma or FIC

As for Manchuria, moving troops towards Australia doesn’t mean you can’t move stuff to Manchuria, or heck one could even build an IC there and build.

You grossly overestimate the Allies power early on in Asia.  Russia is defensive, China is infantry and you aren’t building any ground units for UK.

@wodan46:

@a44bigdog:

wodan46 you do good as far as thinking outside of the box. That can be a good thing. However without testing one can never know the value of ones ideas. And then when active players point out obvious flaws in your strategies you rarely adapt to them just offer up more unrealistic situations.

I analyzed the situation and see the nature of the attack.  Still think it involves good prediction of the actions of the Allies and involves sacrificing East Asia, if only temporarily.

run the numbers, you aren’t predicting well.  You even contradict yourself–above you are sacrificing E Asia, but below you apparently are advancing.

@wodan46:

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

Wodan,
you’ve only been posting on the forum since Feb. 4, 2009 and you have 170+ posts and you are worried about excessive typing?

The Play by Post games involve a lot more typing, and under a time constraint.  I honestly shouldn’t be typing much at all, but its the least straining activity I can do that I actually enjoy.

I think there’s an AA50 version of TripleA out now.  Considerably less typing involved… Problem solved!