Weasels in Alaska - A Hypothetical

[Jennifer]

@newpaintbrush:

Remember Jen is always right.

I must work harder.

• paraphrased from “Animal Farm”

“Jennifer is always right. I will listen to Jennifer. I will not ignore Jennifer’s recommendations. Jennifer is God.”

This mantra is especially true when I speak the truth.  Japan taking Alaska does NOT dictate that America must drop everything to liberate it.  Alaska is a good money sink to sucker Japan into defending.  If Japan does not try to defend it, then America can take it back at leisure.  If Japan does sink more money into it, America is perfectly capable of countering the Japanese build up at a lower cost and prevent them from doing anything.

[trihero]

Okay, you hold Alaska for two rounds, it then falls to the 6-8 extra units I have in W. Canada.  How do you retake it?  And the -2 is so painful to me when I am already building too many units to fill all my transports.  Okay.  For a round or two I don’t buy my annual fighter.  Whoopy.  I’m not diverting forces I need in Europe to stop Moscow from falling so I can deny Japan their money sink.

Well, I don’t retake it. ; o

And while you’re not diverting forces, you’re not making good use of your extra IPCs. No annual fighter, extra transports, until after you force me out. If you don’t then I leisurely keep gaining +2 every round and you take -2 every round; every IPC difference adds up.  :-D

If Japan does not try to defend it, then America can take it back at leisure.  If Japan does sink more money into it, America is perfectly capable of countering the Japanese build up at a lower cost and prevent them from doing anything.

Your words are indeed wise. Remember though I never advocated sinking more money into simply defending Alaska. I do however like as Japan to have extra income without going very far and I also like the Americans having more units than they’re using, that means they’re being inefficient.

[Jennifer]

Yes, but I usually have more units then I need as America anyway.  So you’re not really cramping my style, you’re just throwing away units and tying up naval assets that could be better used elsewhere.

Can Japan get Alaska for two rounds?  Sure.  Will it stop me from making 1 of my normal fighters?  Yup.  Will it net you more in units then you lose?  Probably not.

4 IPC for holding the land for two rounds - 6 IPC for the loss of two infantry.  Maybe you get a kill and go to +1 net, maybe you don’t and stay at -2 net.

[trihero]

Yes, but I usually have more units then I need as America anyway.  So you’re not really cramping my style, you’re just throwing away units and tying up naval assets that could be better used elsewhere.

Hmm you’re right, I’ll go cramp someone’s style who has just enough or less units than they need  :evil:

[Jennifer]

@Bean:

Yes, but I usually have more units then I need as America anyway.  So you’re not really cramping my style, you’re just throwing away units and tying up naval assets that could be better used elsewhere.

Hmm you’re right, I’ll go cramp someone’s style who has just enough or less units than they need  :evil:

Aye.  Why do you think I usually have more units then I need as America anyway? hehe.  It’s so I can Destroyer Japan if they pull an Alaska landing or I can quickly recover from unexpected aircraft of naval losses by building less then is optimal for a turn and using the “extra” units to supplement the reduced purchases.  I have to recover those units, but I can do that over a protracted period of time.

[Sproit]

It is suicide, nothing more, nothing less,

You could gain a few IPC from it, but still the US has most likely always above 30 IPC, so that’s like 7 INf and 2 armor, Beat that with your Japanse drops. :P No change, and a very plausible counterattack with transports flowing over the Pacific to hit the Japanse on thei rhomeland, islands, or the Asian continent.

[Jennifer]

I think the point was to magically disrupt the American transport system of landing troops in Russia every round for a brief period to let the Axis get a leg up and be able to 1, 2 punch Russia and win the game.

Which is exactly why I never have just enough troops to keep my flow going.  Always have extra.  It discourages Japanese gambits.

[U-505]

The point of the Alaska landings is not to get into a pitched battle with the US. It is to drain the US forces going through the Atlantic and force the US to divert units to defend it. It requires only 1 extra transport because the returning empty TP is landing units into Bury. It looks like this:

1 TP sz60 to sz63 land 1 inf AK
2 BB bombardments AK
1 TP sz63 to sz60 bridge 2 units Japan to bury.
3 TP sz60 bridge 5 units Bury, Kwang or FIC depending on how you want to rotate them.

It forces the US to keep at least 3 inf in Alaska every turn replacing losses to the BB’s or else Japan has the possibility of killing 1 or 2 defending units with the BB’s and taking the territory with the singular inf. It also ties up at least 1 offensive unit for counterattack. It doesn’t seem like much but when you figure that you will normally be doing the same thing from sz34 but in the case of Alaska you are tying up extra US units for your trouble and you are doing it earlier because it takes longer for the BB’s to make it to sz34.

[Jennifer]

It forces me to do nothing.

Japan lands in Alaska on J7 (for argument’s sake.)
America has 14 units in W. Canada, 12 units in W. USA and 8 units in E. Canada
America has 4 transports in SZ 2 and SZ 4

America takes the 6 extra units in W. Canada, obliterates the Japanese and moves some extras from W. USA to W. Canada to replacement.

Japan collected 2 IPC for Alaska, lost 6 IPC in units, diverted 32 IPC (Transport + Battleship) away from the front lines since they cannot also land troops in Buryatia in this same turn.

America lost 3 IPC and negated the loss of Alaska.

Meanwhile, Japan has removed 2 infantry from Russia’s front and thrown part of it’s navy against a territory it had no chance to hold anyway and did not divert a single unit from my assault on Euro-Asia.

[U-505]

Of course it forces you to do something. Namely tying up 6 extra units dedicated to solely defending or counterattacking Alaska. How many people do you know of that are willing to  hold back nearly half a turn’s worth of US production to defend a 2 IPC territory nowhere near Europe or Africa that costs Japan 1 TP that that they are going to build anyway? And those units are being slowly attritioned away every turn by the Japanese BB’s so you have to keep them reinforced.

And why would I want to land 2 inf in Alaska when only 1 will suffice? every turn 1 inf, 2 BB shots.

[Jennifer]

It’s not FORCING me to tie up any units.  I build extra units every round, by turn 7 I have between 6 and 12 extra ground units anyway.  Units I can use to fill transports if I have a bad battle and need to rebuild fleet or air power (which is why I build them.  It’s the same as saving 3-5 IPC a turn or more when you don’t need more units, except you build the extra units instead.)

Of course, I could only send 2 units into Alaska and win.  Or 6.  Or 400.  The number of units is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that Japan has thrown away 6 IPC worth of equipment for a 2 IPC piece of land and failed to divert a single unit from Europe that couldn’t get there anyway at that time.  Nothing is held in reserve by America.  Nothing is wasted by America.  America just built more units then they could transport anyway because it allows them leeway in the next rounds builds to buy fighters, bombers, transports, submarines, carriers, destroyers, battleships, aa guns, whatever they need to fill a need for that round without adversely effecting the efficiency of their transport trains.

Honestly, I LOVE it when Japan wastes money and resources on Alaska.  I have more then enough to thwart any build up there (though I usually wait a round to see if the ID10T will build an IC or try to stack it and hold it) and I have lost nothing from it.  2 IPC worst case scenario, reducing me to 35 IPC or 10 Infantry, 1 Armor which is 3 units more then I need to fill 4 Transports. :)

[U-505]

@Cmdr:

It’s not FORCING me to tie up any units.  I build extra units every round, by turn 7 I have between 6 and 12 extra ground units anyway.

You’re right. You’re tying those units up whether Japan goes to Alaska or not. By choice even.

You are not the only person who thinks it’s a good idea to build a bunch of units and leave them lying around doing nothing until you can get around to transporting them somewhere useful.  Amazing. :roll:

And why do you keep assuming that I would land 2 Japanese inf(6 IPC’s) in Alaska? I would land 1 inf and kill 1 or 2 US inf with my BB’s every turn AND sometimes even get the bonus of taking Alaska on the occasion that you leave less than 3 inf to defend it. Either way, I come out ahead in the IPC value of kills and you spend money on extra units that sit idle.

[Romulus]

The objective of a good USA logistic should be to built the right number of units for the available TRNs. At the same time TRNs should be always full.
This is the way I measure the efficiency of the USA player.

Having more units than needed it is not an optimization of USA resources. So even if Japan do not land in Alaska with minimal forces, USA logistic is already disrupted.

I think that landing in Alaska should not be minimized as a minor annoyance. If timed well by the Japanese player may require a reaction by the USA player.

Naturall ythe right answer is to built the units in WUS, but even than Japan landing have to be dealt by.

[Jennifer]

Well, 505,

I see it differently.  You are throwing away 3 IPC a round to kill 3 IPC a round.  Meanwhile, I have tied up 2 battleships and 2 transports (since one has to return while the other comes out.)

That means you do not have 2 battleships and 2 transports to hit Africa, which means I don’t have to send units to Africa to keep England in the black, financially.

Meanwhile, the extra units, which are insurance against turns I need to buy 1 or 2 fighters to replace losses and thus cannot afford 8 ground units to fill my 4 transports that turn, are being used.

My expense?  6 IPC a round.
Japans expense?  3 IPC for the infantry, 48 IPC for the battleships and 16 IPC for the transports.  67 IPC to tie up 6 American IPC.

To be honest, I’ll take that trade on any given Sunday and twice every other day of the week!

[U-505]

Actually, it is 4.5 IPC’s killed for 3 IPC’s lost. Between the 2 BB’s and the inf I hit 1.5 times a turn.

And I am only using 1 more TP than usual. The returning one unloads a unit from Japan into Bury.

Also, I’m not tying up any units. Both BB’s AND the extra TP would be serving that exact same function from sz34 so whether they get the US kills in Alaska or Africa makes no difference to me. The bonus to Alaska is that they get started quicker. Plus, Japan still has a few naval units left over and since I build 6 TP’s no matter what with Japan, I’ll have at least 1 more free TP to land in Africa, as well.

[Jennifer]

No, actually it is 3 IPC killed.  You lose the infantry no matter what in Alaska.  Meanwhile, you are tying up a transport and 2 battleships for 2 IPC in land.  America is tying up 1 Fighter for 2 IPC in land, if they bother to take it back.

[Lucifer]

I wouldn’t go to Alaska with Jap, as US I would leave enough tanks+inf for protection in LA and to
kill whatever Jap units were left in Alaska.
I don’t think Jap should extend further than Australia,
but sometimes NZ and Hawai in games that lasts beyond 10 rnds.
To have mainland Asia and sometimes Afr. that’s what Jap should do, IMO.

[Jennifer]

In a KGF, Hawaii is almost a given for Japan.

Alaska, as I’ve shown on numerous occasions is usually a waste for Japan.  Unless your opponent has not set up their units in a wise manner, in which case, you can tie up a lot of forces for minimal investment.

[Romulus]

But the if the USA arrangement means more units than the TRNs may load then Japan does not need to land in Alaska: USA is already wasting IPC without otpimizing the shuck to Europe.

[Guest]

Bingo!

Thanks Romulus!

You saved me the effort of posting that…