Exactly the point. As America the trick is to get the Japs to attack you, or at the very least, to tie up Jap resources so they cannot do the Manchurian Shuffle down the Muscovite Way (marching from manchuria to moscow).
You either attack the combined American fleet or loose islands. Sure, you can take them back, but now you have to invest in transports and infantry to move around the Pacific, avoiding the American Fleet, to retake islands.
Who’s in a better position? America with 42+ income a round building 1 INF, 1 ARM a round for the Pac or Japan 30+ income a round building 1 INF, 1 ARM?
Add in that America has no reason not to build an AC + FIG each round to supplement (maybe 2 FIGs if they have all the islands later) and you’ll never take out their fleet, even if you do go SSX’s.
Though, I have to admit, if you are going this route you have to follow through. You can’t go half arsed. You can still do a 3 INF, 3 ARM shuffle through Africa up to Cauc if you want (though if you did, I’d say go through India and take out East Asia instead) while not detracting from your offensively strong defensive navy.
I don’t understand.
3 inf, 3 arm to shuffle throug North Africa in addition to purchasing a CV+fig per turn adds up to 50 IPC’s per turn. Are you talking AFTER the US takes the South Pacific islands? Or are the 3 inf, 3 arm coming from the UK?
Actually, I’d say you work your way up to building them. After all, for USA Asia is an after-thought. Your primary goal is to get those islands out of Japanese control. They’re worth 13 IPCs which translates into an actual worth of 26 IPCs (+13 for the allies, -13 for the axis) and they effect the one Axis nation that cannot afford their loss.
Japan’s response? Well, they can either attack the American ships giving America a HUGE advantage and hurting their own forces drastically (FTR @ 3 CV @ 1 instead of FTR @4 and CV @ 3, a total of -4 Combat points, or 8 effective combat points) or they can attempt to reclaim islands which ties up their fighters, transports and infantry giving Russia relief, or, they can ignore the loss of their islands, build a home fleet for defense and hope they can take Moscow before America can sink them (this last is probably their best strategy. However, none of these really saves them from loss.)
Meanwhile America is in the best position to do what htey want. A) It’s very difficult for them to hit Europe in Revised (compared to regular); B) They got a production increase which is MORE then what they loose in Asia Minor (+6 over standard, China/Sink only worth combined 4); C) American carriers and fighters defend just as well as Japanese ones, but don’t have as high of an opportunity cost as Japanese carriers do. (16 IPCs from 30 (53.33% is much higher of an opportunity cost then 16 from 42 is 38.09%).
And the final point of consideration is that American territory, except China/Sinkiang, is all but immune from Axis conquest in Revised. (In standard as well, only I’d add Hawaii as a threatened territory on J1.)
Meanwhile, USSR/UK seem to do the majority of action against Germany anyway in Revised. (Assuming America goes through Africa up through Caucasus we’re talking 6 rounds before their infantry can even start to threaten German home territory.)
The problem I’m seeing is that your operational cost assesment is slightly skewed because the Japanese has a much larger fleet presence to begin the game with as well as the fact that the US will only make 42 in their initial bankroll as China will likely be in japanese hands from J1. And Japan will be making roughly 35 IPC’s or more per turn by J2.
Also, don’t forget that Japan doesn’t need to match the US on a CV/2 fig basis. As long as there is at least one island or mainland territory in Japanese hands in an adjacent sea zone, Japan can use 4 fighters per carrier. If the Japanese player attacks your fleet it will consist of 2 fighters from the mainland within 4 moves of your fleet that will land on his/her CV and the 2 fighters already on the CV will move 2 spaces to attack your fleet then one space to an adjacent sea zone then one space to land on an island or territory.
8 fig, 2 CV (+1 TP fodder) on attack is roughly equal to 6 figs, 3 CV on defense( I ran a combat sim for this).
Since Japan starts with 6 fighters and 2 CV’s, assuming Hawaii was attacked J1, it will only cost 28 IPC’s to maximize Japans CV potential while it will cost the US (who has 3 figs left after Hawaii is attacked) 78 IPC’s to match that.
My math is thus: Japan has to buy 2 fig, 1 TP(28 IPC’s) to equal the US buy of 3 fig, 3 CV(78 IPC’s).
That’s a 50 IPC difference that would allow Japan to build a bunch of ground units in Asia. And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that Japan has an extra BB and bomber that you will have to spend even more to match. Essentially, 3 turns of US income versus 1 turn of japanese income for both fleets to become roughly equal. 2 turns of income can go a long way for Japan while he/she waits for the US to roll into the Pacific.
Exactly, and it works in reverse too. If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.
3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.
Jap IPC Loss: 204 IPC
US IPC Loss: 108 IPC
And you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack. So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.
Exactly, and it works in reverse too. If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.
3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.
Jap IPC Loss: 204 IPC
US IPC Loss: 108 IPCAnd you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack. So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.
Wait a minute. Of course you need to build allied CV’s for that attack. Where are your 6 fighters going to land for this attack? And do you think Japan is going to let you move 6 subs within range of it’s fleet without crushing them with aircraft? The only naval units the US has in the Pacific after a Hawaii attack is 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TP. Is that enough to protect your subs from a Japanese first strike? Not really. You also have to add a DD, and a sub to Japan’s forces unless they are destroyed in J1. And to get the 3rd CV in the Japanese fleet you listed it will only cost 16 IPC’s. On the other hand, to get the US forces you listed it will cost 75 IPC’s,(5 bmb) plus 30 IPC’s (3 fig), plus 48 IPC’s (6 SS), for a grand total of 153 IPC’s. That’s 4 full turns of US production not including another turn of production to roll for heavy bombers. Japan could buy 1 SS per turn plus a CV somewhere along the way and still have between 20-25 IPC’s per turn to land units in Asia.
It has been proven over and over again…
In a game where the US goes exclusively NAVAL against Japan, the Axis wins.
There ARE ways to do a successful KJF, but 100% US Naval/Naval Air is NOT it.
Couldn’t have said it better.
Man would I love to get my hands on Germany in a game where the U.S. goes all out with navy and airforce vs. Japan. Things would get uncomfortable for Russia really, really fast.
Germany would be lightly defending its flanks with no U.S. Atlantic presence. With a carrier build and 1-2 extra transports over the next several rounds, along with 6 fighters and a bomber, the British fleet would be easily held at bay, and the north would be in German hands. Or if it wasn’t then Africa would be covered in Iron Crosses… pick your poison. Then the fun part-- eating Russians and washing them down with Schnapps.
A growing threat in Karelia would eventually become a growing threat in W Russia would eventually become a Russian decision to give up the Caucasus. All the while the entire U.S. economy is poured into pieces that do not take and hold ground. Forgive me for being old fashioned but give me a flow of 8-10 U.S. infantry into Europe and Africa, combined with the occasional piece of hardware, and I’m a happy man. At the least I’m able to force Germany to make choices it doesn’t want to make, rather than letting them romp through the East Front with only sadsack Russians to hold them back, wondering why their supposed allies are adventuring in the Pacific while they bleed.
Look at it this way- every carrier is 2 inf/ 2 arm, every fighter is 2 inf/ art, every bomber is 5 inf. When the Wehrmacht is knocking on Russia’s door, 3 carriers couldn’t save it, but 6 inf/ 6 arm might.
Exactly, and it works in reverse too. If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.
3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.
Jap IPC Loss: 204 IPC
US IPC Loss: 108 IPCAnd you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack. So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.
Wait a minute. Of course you need to build allied CV’s for that attack. Where are your 6 fighters going to land for this attack? And do you think Japan is going to let you move 6 subs within range of it’s fleet without crushing them with aircraft? The only naval units the US has in the Pacific after a Hawaii attack is 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TP. Is that enough to protect your subs from a Japanese first strike? Not really. You also have to add a DD, and a sub to Japan’s forces unless they are destroyed in J1. And to get the 3rd CV in the Japanese fleet you listed it will only cost 16 IPC’s. On the other hand, to get the US forces you listed it will cost 75 IPC’s,(5 bmb) plus 30 IPC’s (3 fig), plus 48 IPC’s (6 SS), for a grand total of 153 IPC’s. That’s 4 full turns of US production not including another turn of production to roll for heavy bombers. Japan could buy 1 SS per turn plus a CV somewhere along the way and still have between 20-25 IPC’s per turn to land units in Asia.
No, you don’t need too. If you want fighters you could land them on a nearby island. However, I was assuming a HB raid only. Now you’ve sunk their fleet while not risking any of your own ships.
@88:
Couldn’t have said it better.
Man would I love to get my hands on Germany in a game where the U.S. goes all out with navy and airforce vs. Japan. Things would get uncomfortable for Russia really, really fast.
Germany would be lightly defending its flanks with no U.S. Atlantic presence. With a carrier build and 1-2 extra transports over the next several rounds, along with 6 fighters and a bomber, the British fleet would be easily held at bay, and the north would be in German hands. Or if it wasn’t then Africa would be covered in Iron Crosses… pick your poison. Then the fun part-- eating Russians and washing them down with Schnapps.
A growing threat in Karelia would eventually become a growing threat in W Russia would eventually become a Russian decision to give up the Caucasus. All the while the entire U.S. economy is poured into pieces that do not take and hold ground. Forgive me for being old fashioned but give me a flow of 8-10 U.S. infantry into Europe and Africa, combined with the occasional piece of hardware, and I’m a happy man. At the least I’m able to force Germany to make choices it doesn’t want to make, rather than letting them romp through the East Front with only sadsack Russians to hold them back, wondering why their supposed allies are adventuring in the Pacific while they bleed.
Look at it this way- every carrier is 2 inf/ 2 arm, every fighter is 2 inf/ art, every bomber is 5 inf. When the Wehrmacht is knocking on Russia’s door, 3 carriers couldn’t save it, but 6 inf/ 6 arm might.
And yet, I know I specifically sanctioned that the US keep both transports in the Atlantic and send over some troops. You want to leave france open? I’ll take it with the UK and bolster with the US. After all, remember that the US fleet isn’t tied down to the Pac like the Jap fleet is. If you get too cocky with Germany you might find an American fleet moving into the Baltic.
Besides, in Revised I’ve never seen the German luftwaffe/kriegsmarine sink the entire British fleet. I don’t even think it can be done given normal dice rolls. That means UK’s gunna have a CV, 2 FIGs, 1 BB and 4 transports without too much effort at all, especially with the new rule allowing aircraft to land on newly crafted CVs.
How is germany, with 5 fighters, 1 bomber (assuming they didn’t loose any on their first round of offensive combat) going to take out 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 FIGs and 1-3 transports?
No, Shadowhawk. Don’t put a blocker. Only use a blocker if you think you can’t do enough damage to get through the Japanese BBs to more sensitive targets. The reason being is you WANT them to attack your fleet! They loose their best assets in an attack, A) transports cannot come into the battle as fodder, B) their carriers only attack at a 1, C) their fighters only attack at a 3. Meanwhile, your assets are increased. Your carriers now defend at a 3 and your fighters at a 4!
No, the trick to the Pacific front, with America, is to sucker the Japs into attacking your fleet with theirs and thus reducing both fleets to cinders. Then you can clean up whatever islands you don’t already control and rebuild faster then them. And without a strong fleet, their land units will get bashed by Russian units moving off the German front (being replaced by British and Americans).
If you count strictly O & D numbers, by J3 the japanese fleet will still outgun a solo USA fleet. It will have a slight battle disatvantage to a combined USA/UK fleet.
That said, screening is the way to go. A Japanese player could just attack for 1 round, his two BB absorb hits, you lose 2 transports. Then he withdraws.
Screening forces Japan to protect the home islands and all the others from your solomons base. Plus, with a combined UK/USA fleet, the UK can take DEI or Borneo while USA gets Phils and DEI/Borneo.
Squirecam
If you count strictly O & D numbers, by J3 the japanese fleet will still outgun a solo USA fleet. It will have a slight battle disatvantage to a combined USA/UK fleet.
That said, screening is the way to go. A Japanese player could just attack for 1 round, his two BB absorb hits, you lose 2 transports. Then he withdraws.
Screening forces Japan to protect the home islands and all the others from your solomons base. Plus, with a combined UK/USA fleet, the UK can take DEI or Borneo while USA gets Phils and DEI/Borneo.
Squirecam
But what are the odds America only get’s two hits with a BB, 2 CV, 4 FIG, 4 TRN? 30 pts, or 5 hits on average (LL). That’s 2 soakers in BBs and 3 actual hits somewhere. That’s why the US has to sucker Japan into attacking. The US can match Japan purchase for purchase, meanwhile, Japan’s homefield advantage is severely weakened by forcing them to attack a defending US fleet.
the key to the success of the american fleet is what the uk does with the raf on r1… if you move the fig’s and bom to w. can than on jap 1 decisions become much more difficult… of course the uk boats have to follow suit as wel… the uk can put alot of pressure can put on sz 60 and 59 on r1 this gives the us time to commission its fleet while jap is some what on its heels… russias contribution is to reinforce buriatia on r1
1. Â Japan’s starting 2 BB and 6 fighters/Bomber are also 30, not counting its DD, CV, sub potential. Plus the potential for more naval units purchased J1 or J2.
2. Japan could buy an IC, which will allow for some expendable transports
3. Therefore, a UK CV + DD + transports + sub makes all the difference defense wise
Yes, your fleet has a #'s advantage after #3. Buy why risk evan a 60/40 battle when you can take islands/mainland and force Japan to protect too many territories.
Squirecam
The point, Squire, is to take Jap islands and force them to give up control of the Pacific, or come and attack the US Fleet. And yes, I advocate using the british fleet with the Americans. They add extra power and can always move to join your fleet before Japan can move.
Also, if Japan takes ALL those forces to attack the American fleet, it has nothing to use in Asia. I’ll give up an American fleet to not loose Asia. :)
I do agree with you somewhat. The way I used to play the strategy was to let the UK/USA get attacked. I was more than willing then to rely in my defensive strength. Two things changed that…
1 - The advantage you have is not overwhelming. I’d say 60/40. But that means there are games where Japan will survive that fleet battle, causing you a loss. Whereas if you screen, Japan cannot prevent you from landing on the islands USA3. You reduce your risk, but accomplish the same goal.
2 - In tournament games, which is what I play often, you are limited in time/rounds. You cannot afford to lose your fleet. Even though it might be a wash and a long term good thing, with a time limit there is not enouigh time left.
Squirecam
I agree, in the first few rounds you might want to hold off on loosing the fleet. The first few rounds are when you want to grab East Indies, New Guinee and if you can, the Phillipeans. By then, Japan should be good and mad at you and willing to throw anything they have at you to stop you from also grabbing Okinawa and starting to put “feet on the street” in Asia minor. (another tactic to force them to attack is to build an IC in New Guinee…it does Japan almost no good and it really makes them mad at you.)
By the time you have collected those islands, you should be concentrated enough with some DDs, some Trannies, a couple ACs and a BB (or two if you are feeling lucky) to stop a full scale Japanese assault. Sure, you can pretty much kiss your fleet good bye, but then so can Japan. Meanwhile, you now have an IC in New Guinee (if you built it) to pump out a couple subs and a couple trannies to annoy the ever living yoohoo outta Japan.
BTW, the whole goal of this game for me is to tick the other player off to the point they stop using rational thought.
I still want to know what you are taking all those Islands with…
UK does not HAVE a fleet, they may have a few scattered ships, but no FLEET in the Pacific on UK2, not if Japan is being played by a competant player.
I’m taking islands with 1 BB, 1 TRN, 1 ARM, 1 INF. If my Hawaiian fleet exists, add that. Also, the Brits have a fleet, unless Japan squandered her resources sinking it instead of the US fleet, in which case Japan’s probably down a few more ships.
Sure, it isn’t easy. but what jap player (who isn’t playing me) is expecting it?
