So how do the Allies win again?

@GrayBlaZe:

I’m still evaluating and learning AAP40 but I agree it seems to lean twards a Japanese victory.  Japan can completely wipe out China and have the UK backed in a conrner with no more navy before the US knows what had happen and can’t do a thing to help.  However, one thing I’m looking into now in favor of the allies is American stratigic bombers in Imo Jimo, along with enough navy and scramling fighters to keep them safe, it can do a lot of damage to Japanese industries.  A bomber can fly nonstop (7 spaces) from Western US to Imo Jimo.  It not that hard to do since Japan is busy taking over China and the UK in India.

Interesting. My read of the new SBR rules kind of leans towards it no longer being a viable option. In my experience, Japan already tends to keep Fighters available in Japan for defense of the home sea. Performing SBR runs is opening up the US to horrible trades of fighters at 10 IPCs a piece. Then again, it might just force Japan to leave enough fighters home to pull some off the line. It also give the US a direct ability to hit Japan’s airpower (albeit with relatively low odds). Please let me know if it works out when you get a chace to try it (and it certain did in real life ;) ).

One of my friends playing the US took Iwo and staged bombers, fighters, and navy there with the intention of threatening any new Japanese builds but in the end it was too little, too late. It still didnt impact the Japanese econ directly and that made it somewhat less than useful for helping out the Brits.

Hehe, yeah, I figured it would be rough. But in most of our recent games Japan’s navy is often busy pasting the Brits for the first few turns so that does leave open the possibility of a US capture of Iwo with a survivable force. Given that, this could work as a deterrent to pin Japanese fighters in Japan rather than in China and India killing ground troops.

Of course the US would need to have a threat capable of hitting the DEI too and I’m not sure that is possible. But it is an interesting idea if Japan gets too cute in India.

I think it depends on what the Japanese do. If they stay massed up, the US threat down South wouldnt be very real. But staying massed up cost the Japanese time. If the Brits can hold out for a while, things might turn against Japan.

One thing we have wrestled with the Allies is that being at Pearl isnt really a threat to the Japanese. As long as Japan maintains a credible air force on Japan and has some trickling builds of ships in the home waters there really isnt much the US can do up there. Best case would be the landing in Manchuria/Korea, but this would require significant force to pull off and Japan can easily relocate for defense if the US masses up too much at Pearl. The interior lines that Japan enjoys make offensive action against her extremely difficult.

What I’m trying to find is a way to split the Japanese up and make them take some risks rather than committing massiving overkill to every fight. I think it is going to take a combination of threats to do that but they do have to be real threats.

We had our first ‘real’ win as the Allies tonight. And by ‘real’ I dont mean we played it out to the bitter end (a waste of time IMO) but it was the first time Japan lost without either some pretty horrible mistakes or really bad luck on the part of the Japanese player.

In brief, it was a combination of Brit boots on the ground with some additional naval assets, US commitment to Australia and into the DEI, and Aussie threat from airpower based in Australia coupled with a handful of Subs and DDs.

I do believe that the Japanese play was not optimal, but it was certainly not sloppy. Japan poured a lot of resources into the ground war to match the Brit commitment but he did take down China as quickly as we’ve seen in some of our games. Some of that was the need to keep pressure on the Brits was some of it was simply being too conservative and avoiding risks. Peronally I think the Japanese player wants to push hard on the mainland before the US can intervene and divide Japan’s attention.

One thing we experimented with for the US was not going Carrier-heavy but instead concentrating on SSs, DDs, and yes, a number of CAs. The latter were more to see if we could make them work and they performed adequately as a threat when paired with a TR or two loaded with Inf/Art. The threat of the 2 shelling attacks caused to Japan to garrison a little heavier and be a little more cagey about what he left exposed. In combat, the surface fleet performed well. In terms of actual numbers, a loaded CV cost 36 or 37 (Depending on loadout - assume 36 for people who hate TacAir ;) ). For just 4 IPCs more you can get 2 SS, 2 DD, and 1 CA. On the attack that is 6 strength with 4 hits for the CV but 11 strenght and 5 for the standard ships. On defense, the CV comes off a bit better with 10 points and 4 hits vs 9 and 5 hits. The CV offers more flexibility if you have LBA around and it allows for strikes at range 3 if you arent at a naval base. But the standard surface forces have a lot of versatility in terms of dispersal and convoy attacks. I’d say a combo of both builds would be ideal.

At any rate the Japanese eventually wiped out the Chinese but were stalled trying to get into the Brit holdings. By the end of the game they still had not completely been able to subdue all of the DEI and the IJN had dwindled down to a handful of ships. Meanwhile the US was pumping out full fleets each turn and the Anzacs were launching forays into the DEI as well as opportunities arose.

All in all it was the first time that Japan 1) looked somewhat vulnerable and 2) did not seem to have enough assets to adequately complete all the necessary tasks. Dont get me wrong, it was still a harder win for the Allies than it had been previously for any of the Japanese wins, but it was still a pretty decisive win for the Allies.