Thanks, I’ll check it out.
My newest Japan strategy
-
I wasn’t planning this but in solo game I’m playing now, I bought a destroyer J4 and then bought one destroyer every single turn after.
I realized a few turns later that the US sub convoy strategy was DOA.
Constantly reading about a destroyer chasing around sub convoys but loading up on destroyers means they will never convoy.
Italy could use a similar strategy but probably would never work unless Germany doing it from Southern France.
-
The main weakness with this is if the US rapidly bulks on strategic bombers. I’ve played many games where the US does this, and Japan really has no response unless they’re already winning handily. Absolutely obliterates their ships and prevents any new ones from being built.
-
Unless US takes say Iwo Jima I don’t know how their bombers will even threaten destroyers patrolling Asian coast. They shouldn’t have Philippines at that point of game. Maybe Malaya? But by the time they might get there Malaya should be taken.
What am I missing?
-
US strategic bombers (which move a total of 6 spaces without an air base) can attack sea zone 6 (the one around Japan) from Midway or the Aleutians.
They can also attack the sea zones around the Caroline Islands, Malaya, Phillipines, and the Dutch East Indies from Australia (quite hard for Japan to attack). And if India is still in the game they can bomb any ships near it.
The only places out of reach of American bombers are 19, 18, 36, and 21. These are useful sea zones, but Japan can’t do much in them beyond fighting submarines. It’s certainly not enough to make the advances neccessary to win the game.
-
I know US makes a lot of money but risking bombers to take out destroyers that are being replaced every turn seems like it could have some drawbacks
-
A few points to consider that US bombers vs. JPN destroyers is not really a risk for the US, as risk is a measure of likely loss vs. Likely reward.
-
Likelyhood of loss: Bombers attack on 4, destroyers defend on 2. In 1-on-1 encounters, JPN subs will be hit 2/3 times, while hitting on defense only 1/3 times. If the US vectors 2 bombers to 1 destroyer, this advantage tips more in US favor.
-
Direct cost: Assuming a 1:1 trade every attack, if the US is earning 50% more than JPN (ie: 75 vs 50 IPC) they can afford the trade, as bombers cost 50% more than destroyers ( 12 vs. 8 IPC).
-
Indirect cost / opportunity cost: Even with a worst case 1:1 trade, doing so preserves US subs (6 IPC each) AND allows the sub to do convoy disruptions (assume 2 IPC minimum). This makes an economic opportunity cost swing of (6+ IPC) x (# of US subs on station).
So, is a 1 US bomber per turn loss (worst case 12 IPC) that enables subs to max convoy SZ 6 and SZ 19, in addition to sinking a JPN destroyer every turn (>24IPC JPN loss per turn) still as risky as it looks on the surface?
-
-
Agreed.
Suggested Topics
