I am actually just glad the idea sparked discussion.
It was one of those “hair brained” ideas that I have never tested (need a compentant real-live human to work with this one on) that seemed like a game-changing, something new, what the hell is THAT? kind of thing for an Allied player to deal with.
Of course, here is the REALLY interesting part…
What if Japan did that Air Force redeployment I posted elsewhere so that the figs reached Europe about the same time that Japan fleet was able to attack UK sea zone, and all of that VERY valuable allied navy…
Japan’s Capital Ships, plus AF, against a mostly transport navy with capital ships split trying to protect Eastern US trannies and UK trannies form the invading Japan fleet… Could Japan pick those fleets off piecemeal; allowing Germany a few rounds to hammer Russia solo and break their back?
Anyway. Glad folks enjoyed the concept.
BTW: I almost NEVER attack Pearl, and I don;t plan to change that strategy. My Japan fleet has more important things to do that kills a fig, a carrier, and a sub.
Switch,
Didn’t mean to imply that I was done with the conversation or that I didn’t enjoy it. Just thought you might be interested in what others, who might not post here anymore, thought of this concept.
Yeah, with additional fighters in Europe, the fleet is a threat…but I’m not sure the Allies would let this happen. They will have plenty of time to see the Jap fleet coming and can plan accordingly, perhaps with a turn purchasing bombers for an assault on this fleet.
I am still reading the old threads.
From what I have read so far, the only reason why I would consider Pearl is to eliminate a potential threat to my trannies and free up my Capital Ships completely for Indian Ocean duty. This is something I LOVE to do with my Japan capital ships (plus a tranny or 2).
So why would I not do Pearl if I wanted to leave “unguarded” trannies in Japan? Simple… I wait for the US to move away in US1, then I know I have AT LEAST 1 round to prepare for any attempt to come after my trannies. Stage the capital ships off Burma, and if US moves in, go back to Japan, if not, head for India, Mid-east, Africa, or Australia. If, after I move, US moves in, I shift some AF, drop a couple of subs or an AC (I have IPC’s available to do so as Japan by this point) and let them come on in if they want.
There is one statement in those old threads that is unsupported, and rather outlandish standing by itself. But it comes from one of our mods, so I am re-posting it…
“If japan doesn’t pearl I, as America, will take France on turn 3 and keep it.” by dezrtfish
What difference does the Pacific fleet make in France? It only adds 1 BB, 1 fig and 1 tranny to the mix. Counter that with additional IPC loses by UK and USSR from Japan focusing on those two targets instead, and it should more than counter the minimal US gain.
Also, I notice that folks call a second German strike on Allied navy a poor decision. I am sorry, but I have found that, if it means stopping Allied land forces from landing in Europe, then ANY cost of airforce is worth the risk. Lose a couple of 4’s on defense for destroying trannies and stopping 2 INF per round from landing in Europe. Sounds like a GOOD trade to me. The longer you can keep US and UK from landing forces, the longer Germany lives, and the longer Japan has to do its thing. And US moving the PAC fleet to Paris in 3 rounds… well that is 3 rounds of Japan unrestricted. Japan will hold SFE, Yakut, China, Sinkiang, India, Australia, NZ at a MINIMUM and most likely one of Kaz/Novo/Evenk, plus Persia or Syria, and probably grabbed Hawaii while they were at it; this time without much resistance (1 INF).
I notice that folks call a second German strike on Allied navy a poor decision. I am sorry, but I have found that, if it means stopping Allied land forces from landing in Europe, then ANY cost of airforce is worth the risk.
I generally consider a second strike on the UK navy bad because of the loss of the fighters. Germany needs to keep the fighters for the following reasons:
Most importantly,the fighters add teeth to the Axis defense. Their value is clearly shown when the Allies strafe E. Europe. Without these fighters, the Allies will have an easier time in the long run in invading Germany.
The fighters enable Germany to trade Ukraine with Russia, otherwise Germany cannot retake this without applying more ground forces (which will be lost on the next turn) than necessary. This 3 ipc gain a turn adds up.
In the event of the German Sweden maneuver they assist on a German strafe (or two) of the Allies in Norway. Or they can do this anyway if Norway is lightly held, perhaps by the Russian tanks. It might be worth a fighter to take out two or three Russian tanks.
The fighters are useful in Africa to prolong this German occupation.
The fighters keep the Allies honest with their transports. If Germany has fighters, you don’t see any lone transports floating around.
The fighters add firepower if/when Germany decides on a kamikazee attack (take it or die trying) on Karelia (or Moscow). Most often this is either in combination with the Japanese assualt or a desperation move where the German player realizes the Axis are falling behind and only lucky dice can save the game.
Taking out the navy on G2 only slows down the Allies 2 turns (actually less because they still have their infantry purchase). The above reasons will gain Germany more than this IMO.
So you recommend only a single initial tear at Allied shipping?
If so, do you go for the US tranny also, or just the UK surface fleet (excluding India tranny, which I leave to Japan to handle)?
And then you pool those figs for use for trading a 3 IPC territory that both Germany AND Russia will get paid for, and allow US and UK to start landing forces in Turn 3?
I just don;t see it. If, as everyone here seems to say, the death knell of the Axis is Allied reinforcements in karelia (and then in Russia), then why would you ever do anything that would allow those reinforcements to land FASTER?
If, as everyone here seems to say, the death knell of the Axis is Allied reinforcements in karelia (and then in Russia), then why would you ever do anything that would allow those reinforcements to land FASTER?
Well I consider it more important for Germany to be able to keep the bulk of the Allies forces in Karelia, rather than in Moscow. Without the fighters, the Allies will be able to put more in Moscow (usually after a Germany kamikazee assault on Karelia at the critical point) which will make it harder for Japan to take Moscow.
I posted my reply as a new thread… a no-bid Axis victory. It seemed to fit more for a new thread (since it was German AF usage) rather than the existing thread of Japan sending their fleet into the Atlantic.
I’m not sure I understand your strategy. Why wouldn’t the US simply take the canal back? How then could you sail through it?
I’m not sure I understand your strategy. Why wouldn’t the US simply take the canal back? How then could you sail through it?
The US would have to take it back on the same round I took it in order to prevent me from sailing through. And in most cases, the US does not have multiple tanks in Western US that could sweep down through Mexico to re-take Panama from 2 INF. Thus Japan could use the canal, grab their INF from the other side, and proceed to raid in the Atlantic.
Whoops I’m sorry, I was looking at the revised map not the old one. The panama canal is directly connected to the Eastern US in revised so it’s extremely easy to deflate this strategy in revised.
Whoops I’m sorry, I was looking at the revised map not the old one. The panama canal is directly connected to the Eastern US in revised so it’s extremely easy to deflate this strategy in revised.
Damn you are right! Now if THAT is not a goofy map change! LOL Panama connected to Eastern US… That is as much of a screw up as Western Canada bordering the Atlantic Ocean in Classic.
Any strategy with begins with consolodate is inferior as it wastes an entire turn.
You have to reply with a little more substance than that limited. I think that ncswitch has shown a plausible alternate strategy. What you are I think missing is that the japan navy is not “missing” anything. They are optimizing their mainland landing by consolidating in the japan seas. They don’t even need to consolidate as it were, they could always send a BB and transports up to SFE as well.
Also, these alternate strategies are in direct response to specific opening moves by other nations and were posted as a way to “try something new” that also had the unique component of being so crazy as to be viable :-)
