Posts made by ItIsILeClerc

@suprise:

Any time a surface war ship goes into an area that has the Kami symbol in it and there are still Kamis left then the ��� player can choose to use them or not, so it can happen in a noncom move
Transports ans subs cant be taken as targets

From 2nd edition rules:

Phase 2: Combat Move
“If an allied player attacks Japanese units in or declares an amphibious assault from one of these sea zones [the ones with the kamikaze symbol], the Japanese player can announce at the beginning of this phase [Combat Move] that he or she intends to launch one or more (…)”.

So no Kamikazes in the NCM allowed unless there are rules errata that I am not aware of ;-)

Let’s say I had to abandon Calcutta because I was unprepared for this USA 100% Europe approach and I was playing too routinely into Russia, China AND India with Japan, and also made the mistake of DOWing in J2  :roll: (remember USA in this scenario can get to Gibraltar the very same turn as Japan DOWs, save turn 1).

But Saving Moscow AND retaking Calcutta is exactly what I saw them UK bastardo’s do :lol:. And that has little to do with Japan, but mostly with the dynamics in Europe (Germany + Italy being weaker, USA + UK being stronger, Russia being safer, RAF sooner relieved from Moscow, etc. etc.).

@Cmdr:

3 Destroyers have about a 45% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle.  I know, the punch says 100% chance of getting a hit since there is a combined 6 punch, but we both know from empirical evidence that such a statement is hogwash.  Further, the calculators that run using statistics and have multiple years of good track records in predicting battles back up the statement of 45% odds of getting a hit in one round of battle.

A cruiser by itself has a 50% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle, but by punch and by calculator.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if you have 30 destroyers you are far better off purchasing a few cruisers to add a hammer to your fleet than buying yet more destroyers.  I have found this to be true in empirical results myself.  3 Cruisers added to a large fleet has provided a much better return (for me) than just buying more cruddy destroyers.Â

Just like when you have 90 infantry it helps to buy tanks instead of yet more infantry.

Of course this is all moot in LL.  LL is a completely different game using the same map and pieces, but with different strategy and rules.  Of course in LL you’d rather have 9 destroyers than 6 cruisers.  There’s very little luck involved then and you can look at the entire battle, not just each piece.

Wow… if empirical evidence says 3 destroyers have a 45% chance to score 1 hit that’s bad… I mean the punch of 3 defending SUBS is even better. Should be 50% but now I am really curious about the empiric chance for subs as well.

Makes me wonder if something was odd about the ‘empire’ where those results came from  :-P. Maybe its population was extremely unlucky  :wink:.

I wonder how a cruiser has 50% chance of getting a hit in one round BOTH by punch and calculator but a destroyer does NOT have the same chance (33%) both by punch and calculator. In other words: why would a CA follow different rules than a dd?

Don’t get me wrong but the day I accept a dd even has less chance than a defending sub, I 'll only ever buy a minimum number of dd for sub hunting purposes.

Anyway, BB and CA were heavily outclassed by aircraft from CV in the real war, so why would we want these units gain in importance in game? They already have much more importance than normal and aircraft at sea is by far not as lethal as was/is the case in reality so why would we want to make the BB and/or CA more useful?
If anything I would argue to make the CV even more dominant in sea battles to at least create a slight historic feel, but currently I like it exactly the way it is!

@Demandr3d:

There are people who take the pac fleet and go home?

WOW.� � Just. Wow.

I would love to play against somebody who tried that…id be winning the game around turn 6 or 7…and it would be easy to see coming, and impossible to stop.

Take ANZAC first, wall it off with a giant fleet, threatening hawaii, then march on India with an unstoppable hoard…I cant think of a single way that the allies could stop this from happenning, if the USA left the Pac and then spent its first 3 or 4 turns income in the Atlantic.

You are on the right track but from (bitter ;-) ) personal experience I can tell you that is not going to work. After Sydney I think you best go for Hawai and end the game right there (you only need to hold your VCs till the end of the turn so your fleet/IJA losses are allowed to be high as long as you can take Honolulu with substantial number of land forces).

Taking ANZAC first means you are not taking Calcutta till J6 at best, but more likely one or two turn later.
Believe me, with the USA 100% in Europe, the ‘Wallies’ (western allies) of all people will be stronger around Calcutta in R6 than Japan can be. Especially because the UK has like 25+ aircraft on the Uropean map (protected by the US commitment).

Although, now that I think of it, maybe it can work if you ignore Russia and largely ignore the Chinese ‘main force’ (except for taking Yunnan in force and the odd areas that you can get without any real commitment) because last time I had to abandon Calcutta I had some task forces deep into Russia and opposing the large Chinese stack in the northwest most Chinese area, but you better prepare to be :-o because I don’t recall I had THAT many units in Russia/China… tho I admit I made mistakes in that game ;-)
It depends largely on your playgroup ofc but in my friendslist the Wallies are known for having 120-ish attack factors into Calcutta R6 (50 or so coming from land units). And their Strategies have yet to be Sublimed as well so it can be more.

@Spendo02:

Japan only exists as more than a speedbump unless it takes the DEI and holds them for a few rounds.

The choice is when to try for it.  The longer you wait, the more resistance you face.  Japan’s game is in playing aggressive and taking risks.  You’ve got ample aircraft to trade for strategic advantage, so use that in your planning - particularly in removing Chinese units from your flanks where trading a Ftr for an Inf means you don’t have to land ground units in the North to deal with them swinging in behind you.

I’ve always liked a J2 move to take Flip and Borneo.
I’ve done J1 DOW and although the momentum is strongly in your favor, it tilts quickly back to even on dicey rolls and puts you into a dogfight in China.

J3 or later DOW is going to be a simple play for Japan to march on Moscow.  Problem is that you allow India to get large and they just start the shuttling of units to the crown prize of the European win: Egypt.  Germany is generally in no position to hold off the UK and US while also making a march to a well reinforced Egypt by India.

The lynchpin, therefore, of the entire game is cutting India out economically. This is Japan’s sole job.  Either by conquest or convoy or some combination of both.  This plays into Germany’s favor because it makes Egypt much easier to claim if India is unable to reinforce Egypt.

So the longer you wait to cut down India, the worse off it gets for Japan - and later, Germany.  J1 or J2 is the best DOW strategy to keep India from stopping a German swing from Moscow to Africa.  And that assumes Germany is successful in Russia - which is never a guarantee for even experienced strategists.

A pretty strong strategy I agree!
In any ‘normal’ situation where the USA also invests enough into the Pacific to threaten Japan, that is.
Also, Japan is able to accomplish a Victory on the Pacific (i.e. I agree Japan is a mere speedbump but only to a certain extend) but this is also very situational…

@ghr2:

@ItIsILeClerc:

@wheatbeer:

In most games, India would require maybe 10 transports at the high end. If Japan approached a whopping 33 transports that early in the game, wouldn’t the US be the obvious target?

Also, how do you plan to use all of Japan’s airpower without buying any carriers (at least I don’t see room in the budget for new warships)?

About the obvious target:
It is a gambit for a reason ;-). Either the USA buys it, or it doesnt (there are good reasons for both). Last time I played with a friend he only started to garrisson San Fransisco AFTER I took Honolulu because he indeed thought I was going for Sydney and did not expect me to go to Honolulu from NZ. But I have to admit I came in with ‘only’ 10 TRS. I think if the USA starts building defenses only after Japan shows up in strength in the Carolines/NZ/Japan, it is too late unless all its European forces are also immediately recalled, depending on how many land/air forces there are.

About bringing the IJA to bear:
J7 take Alaska, 1 TRS is enough for that. If need be, another 1 TRS can be used to put screens into West Canada. J8 IJA lands in Alaska after the initial invasions.
Alternatively: J6 take NZ. J7 Take Panama, IJA lands in NZ. J8 IJA lands in Panama after the initial invasions.

The thought is that Japan does not need its full airpower in the initial landings but will need it for the follow-up battles (apart from the 6 aircraft you can use from the three carriers you have at start). After all, the assumption is that the USA must be slightly surprised for Japan to execute this order. In case The US is prepared (and as a result, has not focussed on Germany so heavily), Japan would obviously execute another order, going for Sydney + Calcutta anyway, albeit maybe a turn later than normal.

So it boils down to how well can Japan make it look like mainland USA is unexpected and then DO the unexpected, the USA buying it or not and where its European forces are and what they are doing.

It is still more of a brainstorm than a real plan, I must admit I have doubts about this myself still. � But I really… really… want to punish the USA for all its 100% focus on Germany Ignoring Japan completely and being able to get away with it ;-)!

Ah heck, maybe I should say taking Sydney + Honolulu is enough punishment for focusing too much on Germany >.<

This whole scenario seems very situational for a very specific opponent.

Yes sir, it is! For a specific type of opponent I’d like to add:
for all those USA players who love to remove the US fleet from the Pacific sending it after Germany and Italy and then continue to ignore Japan completely I’d like to add. Some of my AA-friends love to do that and I am sure there are more people who have discovered its effectiveness. It is so strong that it requires a specific plan because standard strategies does NOT seem work for Japan in this scenario…
As an example, I have seen the UK relieving Japan from governing Calcutta in UK7 (after it was taken by the Japanese in T3), attacking it with 117 attack factors (46 of which came from land units). All because of the strong US presence in Europe.

@wheatbeer:

In most games, India would require maybe 10 transports at the high end. If Japan approached a whopping 33 transports that early in the game, wouldn’t the US be the obvious target?

Also, how do you plan to use all of Japan’s airpower without buying any carriers (at least I don’t see room in the budget for new warships)?

About the obvious target:
It is a gambit for a reason ;-). Either the USA buys it, or it doesnt (there are good reasons for both). Last time I played with a friend he only started to garrisson San Fransisco AFTER I took Honolulu because he indeed thought I was going for Sydney and did not expect me to go to Honolulu from NZ. But I have to admit I came in with ‘only’ 10 TRS. I think if the USA starts building defenses only after Japan shows up in strength in the Carolines/NZ/Japan, it is too late unless all its European forces are also immediately recalled, depending on how many land/air forces there are.

About bringing the IJA to bear:
J7 take Alaska, 1 TRS is enough for that. If need be, another 1 TRS can be used to put screens into West Canada. J8 IJA lands in Alaska after the initial invasions.
Alternatively: J6 take NZ. J7 Take Panama, IJA lands in NZ. J8 IJA lands in Panama after the initial invasions.

The thought is that Japan does not need its full airpower in the initial landings but will need it for the follow-up battles (apart from the 6 aircraft you can use from the three carriers you have at start). After all, the assumption is that the USA must be slightly surprised for Japan to execute this order. In case The US is prepared (and as a result, has not focussed on Germany so heavily), Japan would obviously execute another order, going for Sydney + Calcutta anyway, albeit maybe a turn later than normal.

So it boils down to how well can Japan make it look like mainland USA is unexpected and then DO the unexpected, the USA buying it or not and where its European forces are and what they are doing.

It is still more of a brainstorm than a real plan, I must admit I have doubts about this myself still.  But I really… really… want to punish the USA for all its 100% focus on Germany Ignoring Japan completely and being able to get away with it ;-)!

Ah heck, maybe I should say taking Sydney + Honolulu is enough punishment for focusing too much on Germany >.<

@Kurt:

That’s an interesting idea, going after Panama and New York. I might have to try that…

Honestly, I never really considered actually trying to capture the US any thought. It just seems too… big. And kind of a gamble too.

Yup, same here  :-).
I think it really is a gambit, and I have yet to test its dos and donts and if the rewards outweigh the downsides. So far it is just a theory: potentially Japan can cause major sweating for the USA on the positive side, whilst relieving China and UKI/ANZAC after turn 4/5 or so at the downside (but they will not know it/be sure about it till turn 5/6).

At maximum focus and efficiency, Japan can have a minimum of 33 fully loaded TRS, 66 land units and 21 aircraft + the entire IJN threatening Alaska, San Fransisco, Mexico, Central America and New York at the same time (if operating mainly from Panama with or without a NB that the USA has built there itself…).
:-D If the gambit is ignored USA doesnt see that the threat can be aimed directly at its mainland -you must conceal your moves first couple of turns, making every1 think you are going after India over sea, then turn around making sure your TRS are operating from New Zealand, Carolines and Japan J6/J7-. After 1 more turn you will be in range of all the USA mainland territories and it has had 2 turns only to prepare, placing a maximum of 48 infantry for its defence…
Downside is that your Asian mainland territories look pretty weak/empty now but oh my if the gambit works the rewards, the rewards; at minimal effect Japan will only capture Honolulu, San Fransisco, Alaska, Mexico, Panama and the USA will be down to 37 IPCs per turn for a long time. If you also manage to get Central USA…
:-o If the gamblit is taken (the USA doesnt fall for the trick) you can use all those TRS for a late rampage through Sydney and Calcutta and you have at least achieved that the USA has put ALL its efforts into defending itself for 3 or more turns (perhaps even that its forces in Europe has to be called back) else it will go down.

Really curious how it works for you if you try it out, please post results  8-).

@ghr2:

@Kurt:

I find a good way to make America focus on Japan is by taking Hawaii. That usually scares them into investing large amounts of income into the pacific.

Depends on when and how that is done.

I am thinking in the same line as Kurt here. Must be a Major Japanese investment into Hawai then, which also threatens San Fransisco and Panama (and after Panama, New York).

Another way (proven good to me): take Sydney J5 and then Hawai J6 or J7, winning the game on 6VC. The USA has to react to this with major investments into the Pacific from USA3 and on, or else.

Maybe a ‘surprise’ attack on the USA itself could work if you can conceal the growing threat -mainly TRS + cargo- for a while by sending it towards India/ANZAC first and then catch the USA off guard J7. 
If the USA doesnt buy the Japanese concealments at least the goal of making it spend more than just a little on the Pacific has succeded. I have never tried it but plans for it are distilling for some time now.

My current state of mind with Japan,

is that this Major Power can win the game for the axis if attacking early (J2), but this often guarantees the Germans cannot!

If attacking late (J3 or J4), I find that Japan’s chances to win the game are gone, but Germany on the other hand can win the game.

When playing Japan I always review ONE thing first before deciding when to attack (and my axis friends are aware of that): what is the USA going to do?
This automatically means no J1 attack, unless Germany and I together agreed on both chasing Russia in which case I will start hunting Russians J1 and will not attack ANZACUSUKI till J4 and let them come.

If I see (as an extreme example which happens to be not so extreme for some of my friends) the USA putting every ship it has in Panama, build a Harbor there and placing new builds in Europe (1 of my friends LOVES to crush Germany/Italy like this) I usually decide 1 of 2 things:
� 1). I ATTACK (Philipines + Java + the obvious targets on SE Asia) because I want the US to commit to 1 theatre or the other. If the US goes to Europe (which he most certainly will given the preparations) I sortie to take Sydney J5 and Honolulu J6 or J7. Combined with Philipines and Hong Kong = Sudden death for the allies. The USA can stop this but it will be very hard and means major commitment from US3 and on, leaving the Germans alone for the next 3 turns.
� 2). I decide to WAIT and not attack until even J4 sometimes because I want to give Germany and Italy a chance to win.

I tend to favor attacking and threatening to win J6 or J7 because if the USA can get their focus on GermItaly going, it usually doesnt matter anymore what Japan does or does not, save forcing the USA to pay attention to the Pacific again.

If I see the USA keeping a strong enough presence on the Pacific map (meaning Germany is safe until turn 4 anyway no matter what I do, I will ATTACK J2, possibly going for the India crush or the slower approach through China (and Russia) whilst isolating Calcutta anyway.

In any case I think you should never try to take 3 islands in the same turn AND try to protect all the transports.
That means spreading too thinly indeed.
Sacrifice 1 or 2 TRS seems ok (if you have like 7 or more), but I always keep a minimum of 5 TRS protected. Which usually means a slower approach because splitting your fleet in two � is about as stretched as you can get(so not taking more than 2 islands a turn), unless you are also protected by scramblers, kamikazes or an outer defense perimeter.

So, I think what is best for Japan and the Axis cause in particular, really depends on the situation.

@Elrood:

@ErwinRommel:

Thats one in 200 chance for only one bb left, and for anzac even to do such an attack they had to be real desperate.

If someone would do such a move in TripleA and post that outcome, I would have really strong doubts about honesty and number of re-rolls he did…

Not in my wildest dreams I would dare such a move!

That is exactly what I was anticipating with ‘my’ Japanese. And I don’t think my opponent was that desparate, he simply is not that great with statistics and always hopes for the best…

Actually this happend on the second game we played that day. The first game I surrendered after my Germans had ‘won’ the battle of Paris with only 1 ART (I attacked with everything Germany can get there minus all the aircraft: 38 Attack factors), thus lost an additional 6 ARM + 2 ART + 4 MECH more than the ‘expected’ outcome.
  Now that I know this particular opponent a bit better I think I should have continued playing with still a good chance to win because I won the second game by taking Moscow with 50 units after which he surrendered.

In my last game I played as Japan.

The attacking force (ANZAC): 3 FTR
The defending force (Japan): 2 DD, 2 damaged BB, 1 CV + FTR.

Japan won that battle with 1 damaged BB left…

OFC even with this kind of ‘dice-swinery’ the ANZAC worsened it defense of Sydney to be unrepairable so I just muttered a bit about sacrificing goats to the dice-gods knowing Sydney was lost anyway but still… the swinery…

Thanks for the welcome Variance!

You are guessing correctly ^.^:
If the UK (in our group) sees that Germany is going ‘full bore’ (I guess that means throwing everything at Moscow to defeat it G6 or G7), then it starts channeling its fighters from wherever it must build them (Britain, Canada, South Africa and India) into Russia and finally into Moscow. All this happens Either via the northern route or via Persia/Africa (building a key AB here and/or there).
  UK is OK to sacrifice its ships in the med. to keep every plane alive, annihilate the Italian Navy first and to prevent any new axis ships to appear there.
Subsequently the aircraft help to destroy the Italian presence in Africa (from set-up plus maybe 1 turn of reinforcements) and then the aircraft flies into the Middle east, ready to go into Russia whilst trying not to disrupt Russia’s NO of having Archangelsk-route. But the UK fighters in russia are more important than the Russian NO if the threat is high enough.

This is why our UK is always strong while at the same time being able to be in Russia with their FTRs on time, giving Germany (statistically) no chance on Moscow, not even if it goes full bore. If it doesnt go in full bore than all those UK FTR can go elsewhere as a very flexible force. For example, fly into the areas in Europe that the US captures, stay in the med, fly to India to recapture Calcutta or prevent it from being taken… you name it).

So perhaps we don’t play Germany as optimally as possible ;-).
The best I have ever come up with myself is hitting Moscow with around 230 attack factors G6 (buying 4 STR G5, 4 TAC/STR G4, ARM+MECH G3&G2, ART+INF G1) while Russia alone I believe cannot have more than around 195 defense factors, their AAA still excluded. Combined with the UK FTR however, this can easily be too much over the 230 German attack factors. This combined with sufficiently enough more allied units, a full bore axis attack on Moscow is in our group a statistical fail.

Anyway, a quick calculation shows me that an all STR German build can reach to approx. 200 Attack factors and has way less defense factors so my guess is it will fail to deliver the message to Moscow.

I am looking for Axis strategies to counter the allied dominance (in my eyes) but Perhaps I should then move on to another thread or start one myself  8-).

I will definately look into the tripleA program if I have the time, thanks!

Hello everyone, new on this forum.

I stumbled upon this forum because I am looking for new strategies for the Axis because me and some friends have gotten the idea that the Axis can never win unless the dice saves their day or the allies make a mistake. So basically we feel the axis can flip a coin at start of the game to see if they can win ;-). We also feel the Allies cannot be tweaked down any further than they already have been because they are nerfed beyond believe already. IMHO, an Axis win has to come from creative thinking with what is on the board right now.

I must admit I have not tested this ‘dark skies’ strategy but at first glance I feel it should not affect the allied strategies of me and my friends a lot.
Because: we always defend the USSR with UK-fighters, as much as needed depending on the threat, to a maximum of 16 (!) by turn 4. And UK TAC and STR can also fly in for the defense of Moscow (and SBR Ukraine/Novgorod/Stalingrad) if needed. The huge RAF can easily destroy german reinforcement builds trying to reach Bryansk.

If Germany buys so much STR my first thought is: OK, so once their (as a result of having so many bombers) small land forces reach Bryansk, the Russians can simply counter-attack them (and win), after which some UK FTR can fly in to defend the surviving Russian forces as well. The Russians may even be strong enough to never leave Bryansk in the first place (whether or not helped by some RAF-defenders) but that remains a ‘tester’ especially vs. Italian can-openers.
It seems to me that SBRs are not very effective against such forces. Germany can fly in all their STR loosing equal amounts of STR as UK/USSR looses FTR. But then those STR are bound to the eastfront and the allied navies (US) can finally approach ‘fortress’ (I’d rather call it ‘airstrip’ by then ;-) ) Europe.
  By this time the US and UK also have growing bomberstacks, SBR Berlin + West Germany every turn, severely limiting the German (much needed) defensive builds for this front (it will cost Germany 50 ipc’s to build just 10 INF)…

At the same time, UK always takes Persia, Iraq, and dominates Africa. They may have to give Egypt away for 1 turn but taking it back right after, never to loose it again. Its income should be 40+ by now, aided by Brazilian economy if needed.

India and ANZAC are getting strong if Japan chases the Russians, providing even further aid for Europe (FTR, STR).

So what if Germany tries to turn Sea-Lion. Dangerous, but my gut says: not possible anymore if not done at turn 3, because of SO many UK FTR, STR that can destroy any and all German TRS that show up on their way to the Russian mainland. Not much the German Ju-88 can do about that as well ;-).

All this is just at first glance, I’ll admit again that we have not yet tested this ‘dark skies’ strategy but it is placed on top of our priority list for our global AA 1940 games (2nd ed.) as a potential for an Axis breakthrough.
It certainly will require more creativity with the RAF but I think the trick is to simply build as much FTR with the UK as possible with the aim to defend Russia if needed. If not needed, well…

P.S.
Russian strategy is as always: retreat everything into Moscow, loosing nothing in the process. Not even screening forces. USSR is allowed to make counter-attacks where their net losses are as much INF as German INF, or even better, loosing more INF where Germans loose their spearheading ARM. Building INF and ART only with the purpose of a decisive counter-attack once the Germans reach Bryansk.
The latter is almost possible (but prevented by a small fraction) if German Builds involved as much land forces as possible AND the entire Luftwaffe is also defending there (not much of a defense force left in Europe now huh ;-). So with 4 or more German turns of STR-building I suspect a russian win, attacking the combined German forces in Bryansk, is spectacular and decisive since the German STR do not have a particular valuable defense.