I agree. However, if Japan went in light or you got good defensive rolls you could get away with Battleship, Transport, 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber and clean up what Japan has present.
If Japan and USA choose to do so… Pearl is a Dead Zone, no different than any border territory in Europe… whatever enters… DIES!
The china ftr can not reach SZ52 US1.
This leaves the max tpt, 2 ftr, BB, bomber on the Japanese units left.
Key here is when does Japan start peeling ftrs to keep the carrier if US attacks?
If she loses the carrier, US can w/d and those ftrs are forced to ditch (no where to land)
This is a high risk/reward battle for US!
USA can build a carrier and support ships while trying to sink what remains in SZ52 on US 1.
This would put the naval balance of power almost even with the Japanese only up 1 capital ship (BB, A/C) versus US carrier.
The US can outproduce the Japanese, so this might be a worthwhile rick if you’re trying to KJF.
if the us can sucker japan into a naval buildup it is allied victory, if japan can sucker the us into a naval buildup it is axis victory
does this make sense? i think it does but then again i have to consider the source :mrgreen:
It all depends on the amount spent vs what’s happening in Europe.
If America can put 16 IPCs in the water and get Japan to blow 40 IPCs in counter equipment, it’s a victory for the Allies!
If America can put 40 IPCs in the water and prevent Japan from making serious gains in Asia, it’s another victory for the Allies! (America wille ventually outspend Japan, Russia has extra income.)
If Japan can counter America with minimal investment, it is an Axis win.
2:1 odds in favor of the allies.
I don’t think its wise for the US to worry about Japan much anyway. Neither can do much to the other until the game is over, except cost the other alot of money in naval units
I don’t think its wise for the US to worry about Japan much anyway. Neither can do much to the other until the game is over, except cost the other alot of money in naval units
Hmmm
You think so? I think forcing Japan to spend money on a navy is an allied win, as Jen previously pointed out.
Only if you can force them to spend ENOUGH on navy.
An occasional SUB, basing FIGs on AC’s that are used on land… those are NOT allied gains, at least not if USA is spending the lion’s share of their cash in the Pacific and not gaining ground with it.
If you can get Japan to not send ANY land units to Asia, then OK, sure, I’ll grant that it is an Allied gain… but ONLY if in so doing the US is not sending all of hteir IPC to the Pacific. Otherwise, it is an Axis gain…
@ncscswitch:
If you can get Japan to not send ANY land units to Asia, then OK, sure, I’ll grant that it is an Allied gain… but ONLY if in so doing the US is not sending all of hteir IPC to the Pacific. Otherwise, it is an Axis gain…
unless the UK is doing so too. but that would be KJF not KGF. i would only build pacific navy to protect Alaska, Canada, California and Mexico. and thats only if its easier than just building a supply chian of units to connect to the atlantic east.
Getting Japan to go heavy navy is not that hard. All you need to do is sink their capitals in SZ 52, build 2 more capitals yourself and then match him IPC for IPC in navy.
Switch likes to think his carrier based fighters are all that, but to be realistic, they are not. They have a max range of 2 to get to combat, if you wnat them to land on the carriers, that means at best you can invade up to Yakut, China or Kazakh with them and if you’re over in the Suez canal, you are not defending against an American incursion. That means you’re really limited more to Buryatia, SFE, Yakut, China and India for invasion possibilities with those 4 fighters (0r 6 if you go that route) tied up on carriers protecting against an American submarine fleet augmented with carriers and battleships.
Basically, Germany is on her own against Russia and England. Russia 24 IPC, England 30 IPC, Germany 40 IPC. That’s 4 IPC in favor of the allies. Not much margine for error, but perfectly doable if all you want to do is contain Germany until you get Japan reduced to her home island and then focus 100% on Germany.
And with solid INF/ART builds, mainland IC’s, the carrier based FIGs, a SUB here and there…
USA is not going to get very far in the Pacific without spending a LOT more money than Japan does on fleet.
And while the US is spending cash in the Pacific, Japan is STILL pushing into Asia, dropping UK’s and USSR’s income and making Germany’s job easier.
If you are going to go NAVY to go after Japan, you ahve one choice unless you want to lose…
GO ALL OUT (with USA AND UK)
And while you are at it, pray like hell you can knock Japan down far enough and FAST enough that you can change focus and get after Germany before Moscow falls and the Reich turns on London and Washington.
@ncscswitch:
And with solid INF/ART builds, mainland IC’s, the carrier based FIGs, a SUB here and there…
USA is not going to get very far in the Pacific without spending a LOT more money than Japan does on fleet.And while the US is spending cash in the Pacific, Japan is STILL pushing into Asia, dropping UK’s and USSR’s income and making Germany’s job easier.
If you are going to go NAVY to go after Japan, you ahve one choice unless you want to lose…
GO ALL OUT (with USA AND UK)
And while you are at it, pray like hell you can knock Japan down far enough and FAST enough that you can change focus and get after Germany before Moscow falls and the Reich turns on London and Washington.
I’m not sure UK has to go all out. They have quite a bit of throw away units in the pacific to hinder Japanese activity J1. Also, Russia can set up and wreck some havoc R2 without pulling too many resources from the German conflict. With these proper delaying measures and a US Pearl counter and navy build up of their own, Japan will be slow out of the blocks.
Key is how does Germany respond to Russias agressive posturing toward Japan on R1. The allies are showing their intended hand… Does Germany throw a trump card or play close to the vest? Another big key is what’s left in Pearl (even IF japan attacks or goes more than a very light force).
Lots of variables. I still maintain that if Japan does not get a quick boost in their income early, their influence on the game in Asia can be greatly diminshed with US Naval pressure.
Diminished, yes, but not elliminated.
But without the US in Europe, UK is runnign at half income in 2-3 turns…
And that mens Germany has an economic advantage over the combined “might” of UK and USSR, with UK further hindered by the need to buy expensive naval units to get to Japan… naval units that Germany has the naval and air power to destroy, leaving Russia alone against Germany.
@ncscswitch:
Diminished, yes, but not elliminated.
But without the US in Europe, UK is runnign at half income in 2-3 turns…
And that mens Germany has an economic advantage over the combined “might” of UK and USSR, with UK further hindered by the need to buy expensive naval units to get to Japan… naval units that Germany has the naval and air power to destroy, leaving Russia alone against Germany.
It’s a fine balance, I agree.
UK gains some relief taking norway, so it’s not SO bad.
USSR can make up for the lack of UK income since they have less Japanese pressure in Asia… they can more concentrate on Germany.
Again, allot depends on G1 response.
Russia cannot make up hardly any income from Germany if Germany only has to worry about Russia and a little UK. Russia will be defending practically the entire time.
I don’t see England running at 50%. I really dont.
Maybe down India. But They have Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Norway and all the rest of Africa.
Down 3 IPC for India
Up 5 IPC for Algeria, Libya and Norway.
So UK restores their holdings in your example then Jen?
OK, about the tiem your fleet is built and moving across the Pacificl Germany is buildign in Caucuses since they are ONLY facing Russia while the US fracks around in the Pacific, and UK is in Africa.
I really don’t see it going down that way, Switch.
I just don’t. I see Japan hard pressed from Round 2 on fighting the Americans back and making minimal, if any, gains in Asia; England with control of all of Africa and hopefully Norway (though it’s nice for Russia to have Norway) and Germany and Russia in an arms race in Europe.
Yes, over the span of 10-12 Rounds Germany will eventually get the upper hand militarily over the combined armies of England and Russia, but by then Japan should be reduced to a smoldering ruin and left with only their main island. America should be in posession of FIC, Kwang and Manchuria with ICs on all 3 pumping out tanks to race to the front lines.
Worst case scenario, Russia falls the round before American tanks can liberate it.
Of course it all only works if Japan goes heavy to Pearl and takes average or above average damage. I situation I actually hope to avoid.
Right, you count on a single J1 move, and ignore the impact of a J1 IC.
Even if you trap Japan to Japan in USA3 or 4 (more like 5-6 if you head to EI etc. first) then Japan still ahve about 20-30 divisions in Asia. And that is more than enough to skew the Russia battle to be over long before Tokyo falls. In fact, I would expect GERMAN ARM in Manch and FIC before the US can think about tha tfinal strike…
Yes, it is cripple Japan first.
With Operation torch by UK and US T1 UK can handle Africa alone. And afterwards the US goes island hopping. Just keep tthe Indian fleet alive until they may merge with the american and japan is cornered
