Posts made by simon33

I’ve never had much success with going after India as Japan. I’m wondering if it is better to just contain it.

BTW, I don’t think you should send the 2 UK fighters to Malaya as the Allies. You need 3 fighters to defend against SBR by 2 bombers.

@Chris_Henry:

Major in Shanghai, thank you YG! That was always a point of contention for us! My argument was always that you cannot, even though it starts the game in Japanese hands, it isn’t technically considered Japanese originally owned. We would go round and round about this. Glad to get more definitive proof here though!

Surely the definitive proof is in the rulebook.

Not quite true about Hawaii not being valuable for income purposes. It’s worth 6IPC to both sides. Both have an NO involved.

I’ve modelled the likely battle here: http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=5&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=1&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=3&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=3&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=6&dCru=4&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Suffice to say, if the US made this attack, I’d think it was great as Japan. Japan keeps its BB while the US loses it. Also would keep one or two of their carriers and the planes on them. The BB can’t retreat because then Japan can just come in with some planes to sink it. Any loses should be able to be replaced immediately from Japan. Seriously, the US’s best counter is putting down a DD blocker off Midway. That way you stop the amphibious assault from Japan and also BB repair on J3.

As for the ANZAC navy coming in, possible I guess but the DD can’t reach. It’s still a negative IPC battle and puts them out of position for the Money islands. The Japanese SZ19 navy will be able to take down the money islands, no trouble, probably J2.

Actually, better for Japan to replace two of its Tac Bombers with fighters from Japan.

@wittmann:

Welcome Nasred.

Q1: The Transport does indeed survive and can retreat, if the defender only got two hits, like you said.
It can only retreat to a SZ empty of enemy ships and not through a Strait or Canal, if unfriendly, of course.

Quite, but if the defender hit 3 times while the attacker was using 2 non-capital warships and was assaulting with 2 transports, one of the transports is hit and the other can retreat. Or at least that is my understanding.

@Marshmallow:

Agreed. Why send carriers where the US will kill them on US1 if you’re doing a J1 attack? Send planes, take losses in planes if necessary, and make sure that sea zone 26 is a dead zone that the US fleet will die in if the US moves too soon.

Marsh

Because a full attack can withstand the counter attack with acceptable losses. On J2 the transports can come in, J3 any damaged ships should be repaired.

@ColonelCarter:

Alternatively, skip the Hawaii attack. Sends fleet in the wrong direction and isn’t an amazing IPC gain material-wise.

That’s certainly an alternative but it does trouble me to leave a large number of US ships unmolested when they could be sunk.

UK/ANZAC don’t have a very big navy in the Pac/Indian Oceans without US help.

In my last game as Axis, the Philippines fighter survived the two transport assault and would have killed the transport off Borneo, which was not escorted. What do people normally do about this? All three carriers are needed for Hawaii so no planes can make it. Putting it into the calculator, the defending fighter survives 28.6% of the time in the Philippines even if the tank is used in a two transport attack. Should it be escorted by the battleship in SZ19 perhaps? Should you also throw in a destroyer, stripping it from Hawaii (I think probably not).

Or should you abandon the Borneo attack and use the TT for something else, either supporting the Philippines or running units to Korea?

@Marshmallow:

@simon33:

How do you stop the US from building an industrial complex on Korea and therefore rolling back Japan on land? Also, how would you stop the US Navy from reinforcing across the Pacific?

A US MIC on Korea can produce three units. Japan should have at least three MICs on the mainland (counting India and MICs that were used to finalize the India kill) can produce nine units. That means that Japan can build more units than the US can, which means that the US “rolling back Japan on land” goes considerably slower than the US would like unless they want to risk a rapid recapture of sea zone 6. Additional US forces must come from the mainland US, and if the US is doing that they are again not working hard enough on Europe.

Now, you might say that the US can capture those Japanese ICs on the mainland, but I submit that the the US cannot do that without weakening its defense of sea zone six because Japan should still have a vastly superior air force that can defend those factories while they slow the “rollback” and build up Japan’s fleet for recapturing sea zone 6 or killing ANZAC.

Marsh

Suffice to say, that I’ve never seen this strategy work in practice. USN can also bring in reinforcements and planes can just fly in. There is also China becoming active in the north. Should buy a certain amount of time before Japanese Asian production superiority can bite.

But I’ve gotten your answer, so thanks.

Interesting comments.

How do you stop the US from building an industrial complex on Korea and therefore rolling back Japan on land? Also, how would you stop the US Navy from reinforcing across the Pacific?

After playing as allies again, a couple more updates:

• British Mechanised units in Yunnan are awesome - used them to claim back Malaya a couple of times. The obvious counter to this is to land on Shan State also, but that means more transports needed and greater distraction from the money islands. The mechanised units are also useful for reclaiming unguarded territories. I tend to think these mobile units make building an IC in Kwangtung ill advised. I guess the other side of the coin is that it may make it mandatory.
• Soviet Mechanised units in Yunnan are largely wasteful; although could become useful if a blocker is put down in Shan State.
• ANZAC navy can do more to threaten SZ37 off Malaya and Japanese navies around the money islands. Subs in SZ54 (Qld) have awesome reach.
• US landing on Amur with one transport was far too weak. Even with two soviet planes and all ground troops, was taken down before moving. You’d need 3+ TT I reckon.
• Soviet Finish force was taken down with the help of some mobile units from Leningrad that I didn’t see. This led to the US being thrown off Norway. Gotta watch that one I guess!
• USSR taking down the middle east ASAP was an absolute boon. 7 extra production from turn 3 (2 on turn 2) with a G2 DOW helped keep the USSR going.

Right, thanks. Good to clear that up. I didn’t realise there was a distinction between a Chinese territory and a territory controlled by China!

To not take down the territory is a 13% chance. I would expect that represents an acceptable risk.

I’ve never recovered from it either. But I feel it might be possible depending on how handicapped you are navally compared to the US. If US is building its SZ6 force faster than the IJN is strengthening, then the game is virtually lost.

My last game I came the closest. I had 11 subs off the Carolines, blocking reinforcement via Hawaii and an increasing number of strat bombers to attack forces moving in. But the game was lost in USSR.

Makes total sense to me. Not odd at all IMO.

@ProtesT:

Probably note that on UK1 I ignored SZ37 and brought my fleet into the Med and sunk the German battleship.

If Germany moves the Battleship to the Eastern Med square, they should take down Transjordan to prevent this.

@wittmann:

China can never build in those two UK territories, Simon.

And yes, you can fly over a Canal not owned by your side.

In the scenario that Calcutta has fallen but China has taken them since (so that they are owned by China), I can’t see why not?

@Rules:

New Chinese units can be mobilized on any
Chinese territory that is controlled by China

The problem is that you can’t build your replacement navy on the Chinese coast north of FIC. If you can build some of it in India or Sydney, that could work. What is worse is when you don’t have an IC in FIC or really need it to crank out ground units. FIC can still be threatened by planes and a naval base can be built by the US on Korea, assuming  they hold that, which they generally do if they’re controlling SZ6 at least in my games.

The move of buying a DD in SZ6 and forcing the ACs out or kamikazing them does weaken the US force in the area so you can take it back more easily. It’s an idea worth keeping in the back pocket. It’s particularly useful if the convoying force is mostly subs.

@Marshmallow:

@simon33:

I don’t know, I guess I’m just not a fan of using a transport’s time on New Guinea for no production and no NO, and without a base that can strat bomb Sydney. If you’re still keen on this idea, why not the Solomon’s? At least that is 1/4 of an NO for Japan and also blocks both NOs for ANZAC.

Taking New Guinea to me seems like a strat for nerfing ANZAC’s income for several turns when you are not planning to kill Sydney quickly. With just a little fortification and a strat bomber, you can keep ANZAC pinned unable to build transports (and thus unable to contest the money islands) until the US brings in enough force to scare you off or until ANZAC invests in a factory in Queensland. Keeping down ANZACs income seems like a necessity if you aren’t going to kill it immediately. If you can kill it on J3, then you actually want it to collect objectives on J2 so you get more money.

Marsh

Sounds about right. I’d still attack the Solomons instead unless there’s something I’m missing.

@madscientist:

This isn’t an easy take down of Sydney, but what about landing a few troops in Northern Territory and then following up with say 2 tanks 2 inf every round from Tokyo to Philippines to Northern Territory? You would probably eventually take Sydney and get a little more income in the process.

It would but it you’d be investing 8 transports in that unless I’m missing something? With that sort of force, you might as well hammer the capital in one go.

One I’m a bit unclear about is producing Chinese units in Kwangtung and Burma. Is that possible or not?

Only if they’ve been taken after the fall of Calcutta is my read.

@JeroldTheGreat:

8 ) Canals and Air movement through them.

I’m not aware of any restriction. Is that not correct?

@JeroldTheGreat:

9. Declaration of War restrictions and terms of engagement (moving fleet into sea zone but not attacking).

I also see merit in this one.

I do agree that Norway should be targeted at as early a point as possible. Probably the only thing more important than the money islands besides holding Sinkiang.

US production is worth far less than any other powers’, although an IC on Norway does take the edge off this. I think the one in Sinkiang has a smaller effect - I only buy tanks there.

I just find without some sort of effort in China, Japan just walks through it and weakens Moscow. for a knock out blow by Germany (or vice versa).

What has made this map less relevant for me is that the Allies pretty much need to attack SZ37 UK1 and have it come out even or to their advantage. If it goes the axis’ way, even slightly, the game is pretty much already lost. If the battle is not engaged and you can’t sink something else, also lost (barring exceptional luck). Perhaps the game would work OK with a 6 bid to the allies - throw in another sub to this attack and also amphibiously assault East Indies UK1. Still, if the battle is lost, then so is the game. It’s 77-80% to the Allies - if you fail I guess you could call it an Axis victory and start again.