Posts made by Uncle_Joe

If you can afford to spring for a Major IC in Malaya, the game is ALREADY over.

IPC = Industrial Production Certificate (ie, ‘money’ in the game)

DEI = Dutch East Indies (which are the 4 islands that both the Brits and the Japanese need to gain on of their National Objective bonuses). They are significant because they are worth 4/4/4/3 + 5 bonus to the side which controls them all. That income is the swing between winning and losing in this game.

As Japan, if you dont make an effort to take all 4 early on, your econ will suffer. Also, if you dont make a STRONG effort to protect them, you’ll be losing that income quite frequently to Allied raids.

I actually agree with most of what you say including the fact that I think Japan holds the edge, particularly amongst inexperienced players. I dont see any way for the game to take 20-25 turns between experienced players (unless maaaaybe fighting out to the bitter end when the game has long since been ‘over’). And yes, if you have the DEI and have taken out the Brits and Chinese and the US isnt in position to take the DEI back THAT turn, the game is over IMO.

Also, FWIW, I’m the person advocating what LOOK to be bad moves individually, but taken together add up to good moves the Allies as whole. Unfortunately it’s tough to articulate specifics since it’s going to be different from game to game. But in general, what I mean is that you can leave a few ships exposed here and there or make a few invasions or leave a few planes exposed in places etc because in all likelihood SOME (or most depending) of them will survive and annoy the Japanese or else the Japanese are spreading out thinner to take care of all of the threats. This in turn leaves Japan open to counter-attacks, or losing battles, or even simply risking higher casualties by not having massive overkill.

For example, suppose it’s the Brit turn and they have a few ships and a TR and a few planes. They can send those ships and TR to snipe off a stray Japanese ship (a blocker usually) and still send the TR to land somewhere in the DEI or behind the Japanese in Asia etc. They can send the plane(s) to reinforce Malaya or a previously held island etc (or somewhere you know the Japanese want, but need TRs to get to). Looking at it solely from the BRIT view, these are ALL ‘bad moves’ since they can easily be countered by Japan. But then it’s the ANZAC turn. And they can move a sub into a sea zone to raid 2 IPCs and they can move a DD and a TR to a different island and they can move another TR and DD into position to be able to hit the PI or another DEI zone the following turn. They also might have a plane or two to throw on the Brit island they just took. Again, in isolation, these are all ‘bad moves’. The Japanese can take any of them out fairly easily. But now it is the US turn. The US moves a fleet down to Australia and has another one moved to Pearl, and has a few ships already in Australia that can reach another island of the DEI (or FIC). They can again move and take an island or reinforce one. Or they can take one of Japan’s starting outposts. Or maybe they can put some planes on Wake (if the Japanese havent had time to occupy yet). Once again, to solely the US player, these all look like more ‘bad moves’.

Now turn the table around and look from Japan’s view. One or two of the DEI are re-occupied (one possibly with a plane or two). The US is at Wake, is threatening to invade the DEI again next turn or converge and hit Truk, the ANZACS have a sub and DD in irritating places and the Brits have made a hardpoint at Malaya (or wherever) that will take more than just a single TR + some aircover to smack down. That is a lot of dispersed threats to have to deal with and Japan will likely not have the capacity to kill them all without leaving themselves vulnerable the NEXT turn (which starts the cycle again). Japan has a lot of ground to cover and not a lot of TR and ground troops to do it. Sure they can build both, but they will eventually run out of naval assets in sufficient quantity to cover all the vital areas. This is made worse because any BB or CV that takes damage has to retire for a turn to heal. Also, if the Japanese are moving assets into the DEI and as blockers to prevent the next turn’s annoyance, they are limiting their mobility to respond to future threats by not being at a friendly naval base. This opens up areas at the fringes where Japan can’t effectively respond to the next wave of threats. Usually the Brits are good for only 1-2 turns of this unless they manage to hold onto some income (unlikely IME). But by that point the US and ANZACs can often pick up the slack.

Obviously all of the above is not going to be possible every game. But the theory is always the same - give Japan more threats to deal with than she has assets. This leaves two basic choices: respond en masse to a few of them and suffer the consequences of the others or spread out to deal with multiple threats but be in a weaker position to respond to future moves as well as being more vulnerable to damage in each battle and to enemy counter-attacks. Will it work every game? Of course not. If it did, it would be an imbalanced game in favor of the Allies. But I think the above provides a workable foundation for Allied strategy.

My sense of it that each succeeding edition of A&A since the original has been designed to push the players to play more ‘historically’ than prior versions. And without hard and fast rules to demand such, the designer(s) have used geography and economic goals to encourage it. In this case, the zone connections CLEARLY encourage the Allies to fight across the southern part of the map (as they historically did). And this in turn encourages Japan to expand south to meet or pre-empt that threat (again, which is what she historically attempted). That is not to say to that there are not other alternatives, but the ‘push’ to have the players fight in the South Pacific is pretty clear. So IMO it makes sense to use the historical Allied strategy of early raids followed by a steady march across the South Pacific as a starting point for their early moves.

Truk was the major Japanese naval base in the Carolines.

And I dont see how even carrier-based planes can attack NSW on J1. It’s 4 spaces away leaving no movement to land back on the CV. Naval bases extend the SHIP movement, but not the air movement. And the airbase doesnt help CV-based planes. No, I think you can only attack NSW with 1 Inf and that is not a good attack IMO.

I’ve had the best success with Japan waiting till J2/J3. J1 can certainly work, but I think it leaves the least margin for error. The US ‘train’ comes bearing down mighty fast with a J1 opening and you better have Asia cleaned up before it arrives. Personally I find that too risky.

But the best way I think to delay the US is to base at Truk and threaten their fleets as they move the Pearl and then to Australia. Yes, you’ll likely lose a lot of units as Japan, but if you can keep the US out for a few turns that might give you enough time to secure the DEI and Asia.

I dont have the map in front of me but if NSW is the territory with the IC, then Japanese air cannot attack it on J1 (that I recall). And going with 1 soldier and no bombardment and no airpower in there seems like a waste.

But yes, I think the best Allied plan at this point is the SanFran to Pearl to Australia to DEI chain. It’s the quickest and easiest way to get to somewhere that Japan cares about. And given what I consider to be the crucial timing in the game, have the US get in to the action quickly is the most important aspect. Even small fleets in that area can give Japan headaches.

As far as Australia, I have yet to see Japan make an effective attack there while the game was still competitive. It’s certainly possible, but the opportunity costs dont seem to be worth it so far. Maybe that will change with more Allied victories?

I think the Japanese ‘counter’ to that Allied strat is to fight in the South Pacific (basing from Truk). Doing that however detracts from the forces available to hit the Brits and Chinese. Somewhere in there will be a balance point between what the two sides are doing. But it is in Japan’s best interest to keep the fight as far from the DEI as possible.

#3 - The Hit & Run strategy previously suggested did work. To be more specific, I had a conveyor belt of ships and equipment passing down from San Francisco to the East Indies/Malaya. Basically, I had duplicate fleets in San Fran, Honolulu, NSW and Java/Malaya. They were all within one move of each other. No fleet was large enough to mentally warrant pulling Japanese ships away from their posts. The fleets effectively supported each other. If japan converged on/attacked either of the two middle fleets, the two nearby fleets could converge on a destroy whatever was left of the japanese engagement. If the JIN attacked the DEI fleet, it would win. But then another US fleet is immediately ready to move in. I tested this once in the DEI . It seemed worth it for Japan to stop the flow of arms, but then the next turn the US was right back there, supported by the planes that were defending the Burma.

Yep, and this is why I think Japan is on such a tight timetable. Once this type of situation develops, it goes downhill quickly for Japan in my experience. She is just worn down by constant harassment and attacks and eventually can no longer keep the DEI secure. Of course if Japan wins quickly on the mainland, she can divert more resources to the sea and match the US fleet for fleet and win the game in the long run.

I just dont see any advantage at this point for the US to sit back and try and ‘build up’. That just works in Japan’s favor. Ditto for US attacks into Iwo or across the Central Pacific. I think that just does not have the threat poetential of attacking south into the DEI.

I think it’s 78 for a total Asia conquest. Britain’s last dollar is safe in Canada (ish).

Once that is complete, the Allies have to had made major inroads into naval supremacy or they lose. It’s that simple. If they have, then they likely win. And cutting off the ANZAC bonus is relatively simple early on. At first we just ignored it as the ANZACS were deemed to be a low-priority threat. As we have become better with Allied strategy, it’s more important for the Japanese to take away that bonus or delay it as long as possible (and pee in the Allies’ pool for a bit).

That is why I am happier with a J2 or J3 Japanese attack (depending on Allied actions). By delaying for a few turns you can have more TRs out and have more in position to take everything you want on the first turn of the attack. One of those goals would be to take 1 of the 4 territories that the ANZACS need for their bonus. Sure, it can be taken back, but that is one more turn that the Allies aren’t peeing in YOUR pool and as I said above, I believe this game is usually decided within 4-5 turns of DoW.

Also keep in mind that killing those ANZAC subs do not necessarily result in the loss of a DD. Not at all. If Japan can keep Allied heavy forces out the area, those DDs are likely to survive for more than one use. Also, there are only so many approaches to the DEI from Australia and the ANZACS cant afford to stack the subs (or they lose multiples at once). That limits what can realistically deploy to good positions in one or two turns. This is important because trickling them in rarely does much good since Japan can kill them piecemeal.

As Japan, you start with a plethora of heavy units. Japan needs to concentrate on DDs, some subs, a lot of TRs, and ground forces. Everything else is a luxury that is not necessary in the early critical stages of the game. One Japan has secured Asia, that restriction more or less goes away and you’ll start to see more CVs churning out as well. At that point I believe the Allies have run their course. Either Japan has a secure econ or she doesnt at that point and if she does, the Allies are finished.

What you build in response to a J1 attack largely depends on what the Japanese have where. If they are mostly down in PI and DEI, then the US has a little breathing space. Of course with only 17 IPCs on US1 it’s not really that relevent what you buy IMO. I’d probably go with the CV or 2 DDs, After that, you’ll definitely need TRs. Without them, the Japanese dont have to come out to play. They can just sit back in a mass and create the stand-off that results in an Allied loss.

For ANZAC, I’d prolly go with a TR or a plane if the Japanese are near Australia.

For the Brits? Yeah, prolly more Infantry. If the Japanese are massed at PI or the Carolines, maybe a Sub or a TR depending. Again, the TR is necessary to provoke a Japanese response. If it will survive the turn and be able to land on an island in the DEI, it’s an investment worth making if for no other reason than it will annoy the Japanese. ;)

If you look at the above, you’ll likely have 2-3 TRs quickly in striking position to something of interest to the Japanese. Sure, they can stomp out any of those threats but they’ll have a harder time stomping out ALL of those threats. And that’s where the harassment begins. After that, the US can start to turn up the pressure a bit more with TRs and escorts (DDs and maybe a CA for shelling outpost defenders). A nice safe ‘normal’ US outlay might be 2 DDs, 2 SSs, 1 CA, 1 TR, 1 Inf, 1 Art for 54 IPCs. That gives you some good hitting power and some good diversity as well. If you need to picket, invade, hit convoys, or fight a minor engagement you have the tools with that build. And it keeps the Japanese guessing. If they come at you with full force, use the ANZACS and Brits to raid and wear them down by attrition.

The overriding issue is that Japan is on a tight timetable after a J1 attack. The US is immediately making 55 and the Chinese and Brits are still in the game. The Japanese econ is likely less than half of the combined Allies for the first turn or so. Japan will be feeling the pressure to crank her income and that early in the game she will still need to be building TRs and ground troops, diluting what she can build to augment the fleet. She can’t be everywhere and you know the places where she wants to be (likely the DEI and PI and then supporting operations against the Brits). Force Japan to guard each of the islands and that will quickly run her out of ground forces for the mainland and/or TRs. In the end, the game will likely be decided in the first 4-5 turn after a J1 attack. If Japan succeeds in holding things together and has her econ roughly on par with the surviving Allies, she’ll win. If not, by turn 5 the Japanese will likely be strained to the breaking point.

Someone posted on another forum that the key to win as Allies is to make moves that look suicidal and that expression stuck to me so much that I followed it on my last game as Allies.
The whole Allied key to the naval battles seems to be not only the attacks but the counterattacks that follow them.
3 US carriers sunk by the Japs off New Guinea? No problem, order the shipyards back to build more and attack the remaining Jap fleet (it actually happened to me) with the US backups and the ANZACs.

Yes, that was me and yes, I still think that is way to go. :) The Allies need to spread Japan out and force her to defend multiple areas. And you cant do that with a fleet-massing standoff. The Allies HAVE to ratchet up the pressure on the Japanese from the get-go. If Japan doesnt attack on J1, then the Allies have to start pushing buttons to force Japan to attack as early as possible or suffer the consequences.

The minute Japan attacks, the Allies have to begin launching spoiling attacks and raids (as they did historically). You cant stand off the whole Japanese fleet so it’s not worth trying. You have to spread the Japanese fleet around and take them on in smaller packets or else threaten to take away their econ with raids if they stay massed. The hardest hurdle for us was making those 3-4 ‘bad’ moves each turn that add up to a being a ‘good’ move for the Allies as whole…

Personally I think this game is all about timing and time pressure. All of this talk about 7 TRS and 18 DDs and massive showdowns of fleets makes me wonder if we’re all playing the same game. :)

IMO, this game is OVER in about 4-5 turns after the Japanese DoW. Yes, it’s possible for it still be in doubt after that, but that is very rare for us.

The Carolines may be unimportant for the Japanese, but they are a pain in the butt if the US has it. The US simply has too much access to important areas from the Carolines.

In any case, it’s reasonably easy to defend and we rarely take it as the Allies while the game is still competitive. The usual route is San Fran to Pearl to Australia. Once their the US can hit multiple targets in the DEI. Sure Japan can stomp the US fleet there, but then they are vulnerable to counter attack from the ANZACS and US reinforcements (as well as letting the Brits out of the bottle if you didnt spend the time to hunt them down).

I must be doing Anzac wrong then because the best I can ever produce with them is 15 with the Island bonus. They’re never really in a position to be going on an offensive. Far as I can tell, they’re just shoring up to slow Japan down, buying time for the US. Britain’s not much better off either. They’re in a position to retake the southern provinces, but not advance northward.

ANZAC is there to pee in Japan’s pool IMO. They can build TRs and a few troops and launch raids on the DEI. If Japan leaves naval forces in the area, buy a sub or so and coordinate with your airpower to wear down those blockers. The TR(s) will not survive, but who cares? You are diverting Japanese TRs, escorts, and more importantly ground troops back to the islands. If Japan ignores them, that is substantial income hit every turn.

ANZAC is not as helpless as they first appear. You just have to ignore the temptation to try and build a navy to contend with Japan and concentrate on raiding forces and local power projection (subs and aircraft).

even if india falls, japs are far from winning, US and anzacs ourproduce them

How is that? I can’t imagine India falling without having secured the DEI. And with those accomplished Japan should be making 75+, the US 55, and ANZAC maaaaybe 15. So in addition to having more income Japan will have superior coordination and positioning. Unless Japan is on the ropes at sea when India falls, I feel the game is usually over at that point. I’ve only seen one comeback once India fell and that was a collosal blunder by the Japanese coupled with some bad dice in a major naval engagement.

So far, I build 2 TRs and an IC for the mainland on J1. My goal is to take Yunnan, get in position to re-take it from the Chinese counter-attacking and then get all my troops moving forward into China.

I prefer to keep a relatively strong force at Truk to dissuade the Amis from moving to Australia. Beyond that, I want to have TRs and enough fleets to take the DEI and PI on J2 or J3 depending on what the Allies do. If they go all out to take the DEI (UK), then I’ll likely strike on J2. If they are more conservative, I might hold off until J3.

The main goal is to kill the Chinese ASAP to prevent them being a long-term troop draw. Use all available airpower to ensure fewer losses. Position yourself to take out the Brits quickly as well. The RN needs to go down and the DEI captured. Once that is done focus on India for the win.

For dealing with the US, I advise trying to keep them away from Australia as much as possible. If they get there in force picket the sea zones between them and your valuable DEI. Try and get a fleet in position to take out anything they move out from under cover the Aussie air power. You dont have to kill the Amis, just keep them away.

In the end, once China is gone and Japan is close to taking out India the game is close to won IMO. When India finally falls you should be making more than the other Allies combined and have superior position and coordination (1 nation vs 2).

Of course the Allies will be trying to stop this. :) And to do so they’ll likely make a number of suicide runs to grind down your fleet and blockers and open up your vulnerable econ. The trick is to make sure you maintain enough fleet and air in the Pacific to prevent them from doing too much harm to your econ.

Yeah, I’ve become a fan of the ANZAC ‘suicide runs’ into the DEI. In fact, anything that would me when I’m playing the Japanese I make sure to try and do while playing the Allies. :)

Yep, that’ll prolly leave you weak against SE Asia for a while.

Question: What do you have at Midway? The bulk of your fleet? If so, who is suppressing the Brits and/or taking the DEI? I dont think it’s wise to leave all that income untaken. And if I’m the UK and the Japanese are sitting at MIDWAY with the bulk of their fleet? I’m building a TR and taking the DEI (even if it’s suicide runs) Ditto for the Anzacs…they can be in that area on A2 and a Japanese fleet at Midway would be powerless to stop it.

The advantage here is that you pin the US back away from the DEI, but you have to make sure that arent just allowing the ANZACS/Brits in instead.

I dont think you’ll have the lift capacity to make all of those attack on J1 with any certainty. IIRC, you’ll have 3 TRs total. You’ll need at least 2 for PI for any hope of a non-costly attack. That leaves 1. And if you dont ship anyone else into SE Asia, you’ll quickly be out of troops there too.

Yeah, we’ve only seen that attack fail once and it was utterly ridiculous luck (including not killing anything on the initial Japanese attack into Yunnan).

Yep, harassing the DEI us the Anzac’s primary mission IMO. Your secondary goal would be to provide ‘kill zones’ around Australia where it would be costly for the Japanese to place their fleet. Subs and land-based air work well for that. This gives the US some safe havens near critical areas from which to attack.

Remember that you dont have to do everything alone with each country. If the Japanese move down towards Australia it might be time for the US to pounce. And often they’ll lose their whole fleet. But if they weaken the Japanese to the point where the Anzac’s can mop-up, it’s worth it. And the sooner the better. Japan has a lot of areas to protect and to do that, she needs a fleet. If you can trade out your own fleets and air for the Japanese ships at even a slightly disadvantageous rate it’s well worth it.

I think it was the biggest leap for us when we came to grips with the fact that in order for the Allies as a whole to win, each individual nation had to make what appeared to be bad moves. The thing here is that Japan can kill anything she wants, but she cant kill everything she wants. So if you put enough out there to pee in Japan’s pool, some of it will go unanswered (or else Japan will stretch quite a bit and risk heavier losses).

Yeah, we had that rule come up a few games ago but really the ‘unescorted’ thing is pretty ambiguous. In the end, we ruled that as long as a surface warship was in the same zone at the same time as the TR, then it could pass through without issue. Dunno if this rule was worth the extra complexity…