Naval Base in Alaska wins the game

So the US takes Korea.  Then what?  I guess my question is what’s the end objective here?  A landing in Japan? Or a diversion?

The move is clearly telegraphed with the placement of the navy base in Alaska.  Plenty of time for the Japanese player to redeploy significant air (and also presumably) naval forces to within striking range to eradicate the landing forces and/or fleet.

And maybe Im missing the point, but why the need for the naval base?  You can get from SF to Alaska in one move, and then Alaska to SZ 5 in one move without the base.  The fleet movement telegraphs the move less than the naval purchase assuming the end point is SZ 5 and not SZ 6.

Is the base simply for reaching SZ 6?  Or is this move centered on a Korean landing? If the latter, then you don’t need the naval base.

Sounds interesting in theory, but I wonder what the practical effects would be in the South Pacific and Hawaii.  Seems like you’d be leaving Hawaii fairly vulnerable, and ANZAC on their own - not exactly the best scenario.

I admit, I only have a few AAP40 games under my belt at this point, but this seems a little too “novel” to actually work.

Though I could see the merit in an AK naval base intended solely for harassment purposes.

I think you would be much better served by just building up US fleet and if a Korea drop looks like it would work well just move said fleet to SZ 3.  It is still 3 away from Japan so land based fighters/tacs cannot hit your fleet, but only 2 spaces from SZ 5 and landing in Korea.  The only way a landing would be a good idea is if you could get a major factory purchased and producing units in Man.  This could easily be done with an additional pair of carriers for your starting planes and an additional 2 transports, with a sprinkling of DDs for extra support.  This would only require 1 turn of wartime purchase.  For Japan to counter this, though, would simply require 2 Inf in Manchuria along with land based planes in Japan to retake Korea before you can do anything with it.

We started our first game last saturday night but was not able to play this weekend. I am Japan and during my turn I took some Chinese territories, attacked and took the Philippines, and moved a fleet and some land units to Alaska. My oldest son is the US. On his turn he took out all of my Japanese fleet at Alaska and all but 2 of my land units in Alaska. He also moved all of his aircraft to Midway from Hawaii. The dice were not very friendly to me that night. My 2 remaining land units will be gone on the next US turn since I will not be able to move any other land units up there since my transports are gone. I could keep him busy in Alaska while I take some of my fleet from the Philippines and go after Hawaii. He will (I hope) focus on Alaska and move all of his fleet to Alaska since he won’t be expecting the Hawaii attack.

Has anyone tried this and did it work?

i still have to give this a try…my friends tried a new japanese idea of going for the USA all at once last night…needless to say…the game didnt last very long…

And i’m telling you that you shall loose all your transports used and navy defending them, and your invasion force will be crushed at a loss of some of japan’s airpower and the handful of ground units hanging out in Manchuria.  If your not planning on putting a factory at Korea there is no real value in taking it.  Your drop will not take place until turn what, 4 or 5?  By then the manpower problems in asia should have solved themselves for japan with the factories on the mainland they build and with China being down to 1-3 inf a turn.  The only viable gain for the US to go hard at Korea would be the intention of getting a factory there, then you could get enough ground units to be a thorn in japan’s side in mainland asia.

All I’m saying is try this and see how much it cripples Japans ability to advance quickly.

As a ploy to engage the Japanese up north, then a Naval Base in Alaska might have some use. But if you come and make a blanket statement like ‘Naval Base in Alaska wins the game’…well…be prepared for people to refute that fairly vigorously ;)

And unfortunately, it seems a lot of people can’t refute a strategy or debate it’s merits without attacking the IQ/experience/comprehension of the person posting the strategy. You’ll note that anyone who has strong opinions on game balance/strategies will likely have a negative ‘karma’ rating. ;) That alone tells me that a lot of people are not prepared to discuss and debate but rather belittle and discount posted strats.

Im going to try it again, with a factory, just not until I am at war this time.

A factory there is silly.

Just build in WUS and move it there.  That way you end up with an extra $12 of units on the board instead of a factory 2 zones from the American Capital.

@Gargantua:

A factory there is silly.

Just build in WUS and move it there.  That way you end up with an extra $12 of units on the board instead of a factory 2 zones from the American Capital.

The advantage is that you can use the IC to build 3 naval units that are in range of attacking right away on SZ6, forcing J to move to defend the area. The risk is that J might decide to take the factory.

It’s not worth 12 IPC’s for that very slight advantage.

It forces J to reply to it.

US saves 2 IPCs on US1 and ends with 24 IPCs. The moment J attacks the US builds a naval base and an IC there. US also moves his fleet to SZ1. Then the US can spend its entire income threatening SZ6.

Hmm, this might be a interesting idea.

what if japan simply blocks route to Korea with destroyer?

It seems a slow strategy. US needs to get in the game faster.

@Van_Trump:

what if japan simply blocks route to Korea with destroyer?

It seems a slow strategy. US needs to get in the game faster.

US might actually be getting faster in the game this way. If J stations a force on the Carolines to prevent the US fleet from moving to Hawaii then this move puts the US fleet in a striking position without risking itself (assuming no massive J fleet stationed on SZ6).

J can send destroyers to block any invasion of Korea but the US can use a sub and planes to take them out and comes out winning 8 IPC to 6 IPC. Plus the more the wait the bigger the US fleet gets until it will be able to advance to Hawaii or elsewhere. And if you keep sending subs spread out through different SZs then J will have to switch to large naval buys of destroyers to hold them off.

Because a possible 2 IPC gain on a single encounter, that’s bogging down and locking out the entire American Income is how to win the game.

And what is to stop Japan from taking Haw and stacking a huge fleet there, seeing as they will not need a fleet in the south with this tactic?

@Vareel:

And what is to stop Japan from taking Haw and stacking a huge fleet there, seeing as they will not need a fleet in the south with this tactic?

Absolutely nothing. I’m not saying this tactic will work the whole time. J can also mass its fleet on SZ6 and then threaten to take the IC for itself. But taking Hawaii might be a tougher nut since J will have to position its carriers in range and will have to commit a large number of transports. All of this is a distraction from DEI.

And what is keeping japan from simply using a small fleet to hold DEI, say 2 subs, a carrier, BB, cruiser, and a pair of destroyers?  UK/ANZAC cannot kill that fleet and it is less than half of the starting fleet for Japan.  That would be 11 hits and around 23 defensive points.