Posts made by Uncle_Joe

Yes, that is what a ‘J1 attack’ refers to. :)

But the goal is to prevent the Allies in Asia from increasing their econ. By attacking on J1, you can kill both Brit TRs and 2 of the 3 US TRs starting out as well as deny the Brits their bonus income from control of their 2 starting major ports. So in essence you are trading that US income boost for a reduced Brit income (and the ability to kill the BB and TRs while they are vulnerable alone).

I think the timing for a Japanese attack will vary from game to game based on Allied responses. Of course that is irrelevant if you are attacking on J1, but IMO a J1 attack is not as weighted of a blow and it is subject to reverses if the dice dont cooperate in any of the battles.

I’ve tried the J1 attack and while I won the game as Japan, it was largely due to the Allies not making a cohesive response. I’m guessing that is probably true for a lot of people playing against the J1 attack at this point and thus it looks so successful. But I’ve also beaten the J1 attack as the Allies twice in a row now and it was a far easier road than when I played against a good J2 attack previously.

This is probably one of those issues that people will debate for a long time (and that’s a good thing IMO). It helps keep the game from getting stale since there is less of a ‘scripted’ opening.

Here’s what I mean.  If you are willing to lose planes (4th commandment of A&A has always been do not use planes as soakers, I know!) then you can run over the mainland of Asia.

We have a game going right now. I think we’re in turn 6, it might be 7 and Japan is earning 75 a turn.  Japan has a fleet sitting at the Phils consisting of 6 CVs with 6 of each plane, 3 BBs, 2 CAs, and 14DDs.  There is NOTHING that can be done against that by the US/ANZAC who are earning 65.  I could care less that the US has a Fleet of 3 CVs, 3 BBs, 1CA and 18DDs sitting in Queensland.  I’m making 10 more per turn.  I can dump 7 zeros and an infantry down in the homeland if he thinks about heading north, and my fleet can cut his off.  Again, Japan is making 75, US 55, ANZAC 10.  This is not “atypical” for a game around these parts.

Interesting. We NEVER see those kind of build ups in our games! Good lord, no wonder the Japanese are winning easily - it sounds like the US is just sitting around trying to outproduce the starting Japanese fleet + reinforcements. Well that is never gonna work…

In any case, that game is already over - the Allies have lost. They lost it turns and turns ago and THAT is where the vulnerability is in a J1 attack. And the Allies in that game have totally missed that opportunity. You can pack that one up and start again. ;)

I’ll say this again.  If you play AGGRESSIVE, there is no reason NOT to attack on J1.

If by AGGRESSIVE, you mean RISKY (or at least RISKIER) then I’m inclined to agree 100%. It’s more of higher risk/higher reward option IMO. I do think it leaves you more open to being zapped by the dice, but if that doesn’t happen you are probably in a superior position depending on how the Allies respond. But ‘aggressive’ does not always mean ‘better’….

After J1 attack royal navy is down to DD CA beside India. One-third of Japanese navy more than a match. If they could run away to Africa, they would. Also easier to take unoccupied DEI than if you let British inf in there.

And 4 Fighters and a Tac. That is a lot of firepower to hit the reduced IJN fleet in the area. Granted it tends to cost the Brits pretty heavily as well, but with no real fleet presence in the DEI, the Anzacs can come out to play and the Japanese will find it hard to secure the islands for long.

I would attack where ever the US fleet is absent from. Hawaii or Queensland.

Without killing the starting US fleet, Hawaii would likely be a suicide run. The US could hit with a fleet off Queensland coupled with anything bought at San Fran. Hitting Hawaii on J3 without killing the US fleet would be folly IMO.

Don’t attack ANZAC until UK is dead. Just threaten to attack.

I dont see how you have the TR capacity to make a serious threat against ANZAC with a J1 attack. I would be using the ANZAC force to prep to threaten the DEI to take it or re-take it depending on what the Japanese do.

The key thing is that Japan can’t be everywhere. There will be plenty of room for the Allies to nibble at the edges and Japan really will need to secure Asia in a hurry with the US breathing down their backs from US1.

You’re not going to be making 75 a turn on J2 or J3 and he could easily lose the bulk of his fleet by then with this strat. Honestly I think the bulk of the people using the J1 strat are playing against less experienced Allied players who panic and make poor moves in response. They feel the need (as we did at first) to immediate begin to do something and then they get caught and killed by the superior Japanese starting forces.

But IMO, a J1 attack puts Japan on a VERY tight timetable. She MUST get that econ into the 60s very quickly or it’s going to go downhill pretty quickly them. Is it possible? Sure it is. It wouldn’t be a very good game if there werent options for when to attack and how. But I dont think it’s anywhere NEAR as easy as many are claiming if playing against Allied players who dont panic and who have a clear idea of how to set up proper counter-attacks.

Captured Phillipines(using all 3 transp), cut Burma road, took few China territories.

Also, I have a question here. What do you use to escort the TRs? Is it that force that then relocates to Truk on J2? Is that force strong enough to stand off the US starting fleet + reinforcements? Can it survive if it has to move to engage the US off of Queensland (ie, it has to be able to BEAT the US force, then survive the US bomber counter-attack immediately followed by the Anzac air attack + any stray ship Anzac might have). My experience is that your fleet is going to take a ridiculous beating if you try and and while you might even ‘win’ the combats, you’ll have almost zero navy left and the US will be churning out ships with 55/turn supporting Anzac raids on the DEI.

IMO, Japan has to try and conserve her fleet a while longer until she can exploit her conquests in China and the Brit holding and gain an econ on par with the US. If you lose a substantial portion of your fleet and you are making <50 IPCs a turn you are going to be in for a lot of hurt from repeated US/Anzac attacks on your econ.

My opinion of a J1 attack is that you are forced into a lot more lower-odds battles that you will find harder to recover from if they go poorly. You simply dont have the troops in Asia or at sea to absorb hits if the Chinese/Brits/US get a few decent rolls in any of those battles. Also, I think you’ll find it hard to kill the Royal Navy, pin down the USN, and secure the DEI while simultaneously hitting China with a maximum effort. And if you skimp in any of those areas you open yourself up to a bad battle or two from which it can much harder to retake the initiative.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think a J1 attack is BAD, but I do think that J2 (or even J3 depending on Allied reaction) is a safer but still effective play. My sense of the game balance is that it isnt really out of whack, but good Allied play takes a bit more experience. I think most people’s initial reaction is that Japan is very tough to beat (regardless of the opening). But with a bit of time and experience, the Allies become tougher and tougher.

Lol, I dont think we’ve even CONSIDERED playing the game out till the bitter end of invading Japan. Not worth the time invested IMO. And it would be soooo messy. There’s a good reason they dropped the A-bombs. ;)

Yes, dollar for dollar DDs are better than any other surface ship out there for straight up combat. Of that there is no doubt. But there are still limited roles for BBs and CAs which DDs do not perform. Both add to the threat of invasions of small garrisons (Attacking with a TR and 1 Inf + 1 Art vs 2 Inf is less than 50/50 without shelling, but considerably better with CAs or BBs). In addition, BBs allow for better ‘low intensity’ warfare. That ability is FAR more limited now than in AA50 due to BBs not auto-healing, but it can still be important in smaller engagements. Finally, either still gives more combat bang for your production ‘slot’ than a DD. If you are dealing with minor ICs or trying to build a force of ground troops in the same turn, that can some times be a factor.

That said, DDs still rule the roost and that will likely not change. But I feel that a good mix will give you more options in the long run in terms of threat potential. Just the invasion potential is enough to force the enemy into different (and less optimal) defense deployments. And to me, that can be worth it for a slight drop in value/dollar for naval combat.

However, the UK, for example, can not pass through a Japanese fleet, to unload troops onto a Japanese territory, which would be an act of war.  If the UK, or anyone else, is going to make a combat move, they are already at war at the beginning of the turn.

While this makes sense and would be an easy rule to remember it seems to run contrary to the rulebook (or errata or previous ruling) which mentioned that the ‘first’ time you made a combat move against a power with which you weren’t at war you could ignore the presence of an enemy ship in a previous zone. That opens up all kinds of cans of worms, but that is what I recall from reading the book. Has this changed? If so, can someone point me in the direction of the official ruling on this?

Assuming it HAS been changed, then the basic idea is that if you are going to issue a DoW on a Neutral Power, you have to do it by the beginning of Combat Movement and thus can be blocked by picket ships. This would seem to make it harder to hit Pearl with a surprise attack. :)

@Uncle Joe: The really funny thing about this map is this.  If Japan controls all of asia and the Philippine islands they make 55 IPC a turn, same as the US.  This is why DEI is the absolutely most important area in the game.  It is the economic decision maker on who has the advantage.

Yes, they really took great pains to try and flow the game into the DEI. The naval base set up and the sea zone connections really conspire (along with the economic value of course) to make that the primary battleground. I think in general this is a good thing. So far, however, the South Pacific hasnt really seen much action in our games. The Anzacs often get their bonus and hold it since it doesnt seem to be worth it to the Japanese to extend that far. The risk/reward ratio seems pretty low IMO. Now if the US was getting a bonus and not the Anzacs, I might want to spend a little more effort to go in and take it away but even there I’m not convinced the 5 IPCs/turn swing would be worth the cost/risk of fighting there.

Still, as the game matures it’s quite possible that the Japanese would want to secure one or more of the SoPac territories to protect against raids into the DEI and that would pretty much coincide with historical strategies to extend the defensive perimeter.

the real truth of the matter is that Japan is working against time in this game…basically the Japs have to capture the cities they need within a certain number of turns before the USA gets too strong and starts kicking Japan A$$ across the board…

That has not really been our experience so far. Japan doesnt need to capture the 6 cities to ‘win’, all they need to do is have a higher income than the Allies and still retain her superior positioning and the game is pretty much over without the need to play out to the grinding end. And to accomplish this, the Japanese only need to take out the Brits and China without becoming crippled at sea.

Japan with control of the DEI and India will likely be making 75+. The US will still be making 55 and the Anzacs probably 15. From there, the US is no longer in a superior position to trade with Japan. In addition, the Allies have to cover 2 VCs (Hawaii and NSW) and a slip at either means the official end of the game.

All I’m saying is try this and see how much it cripples Japans ability to advance quickly.

As a ploy to engage the Japanese up north, then a Naval Base in Alaska might have some use. But if you come and make a blanket statement like ‘Naval Base in Alaska wins the game’…well…be prepared for people to refute that fairly vigorously ;)

And unfortunately, it seems a lot of people can’t refute a strategy or debate it’s merits without attacking the IQ/experience/comprehension of the person posting the strategy. You’ll note that anyone who has strong opinions on game balance/strategies will likely have a negative ‘karma’ rating. ;) That alone tells me that a lot of people are not prepared to discuss and debate but rather belittle and discount posted strats.

Yes, I dont think Malaya is really that viable. By the time you can take and secure Malaya, the Brits should be all but beaten anyways and it becomes unnecessary.

My usual spot at this point is Kiangsu on J1. This immediately lets me start getting more grunts into the front line combat. It’s usefulness fades a bit later on, but I’ve found that once Japan owns India and China is down for the count, the game is pretty much over anyways. Japan will be outproducing the Allies as a whole by that point and it’s likely just a matter of time to take either Pearl or NSW.

I admit that I havent studied this issue extremely closely (or seen it in use) but my sense of it is that as the Japanese player, I’m not all that worried about it. I mean you are going to have to fight the US forces SOMEWHERE. And if the US has 5 TRs + 5 tanks + 5 inf and enough navy to not make this be a one-time suicide force up North then that mean that the US has nothing harassing me in the SoPac/DEI areas. And honestly I’d rather take them on in my own front yard than all the way down away from my production and massed airpower.

Yes, the image of US tanks blitzing through China and liberating Chinese lands to spring up troops is somewhat disturbing, but I still think I would prefer that to having the US continually taking away my bonuses down south and occupying high-value islands. Also, having the US up north is keeping them out of support range from the Aussies and any surviving UK air/navy. That will deprive them of mutual support and threat potential.

And as was said above, it’s not like this is a surprise maneuver. The US has to built the Naval Base (giving 1 turn of warning) and then the TRs with all the associated troops etc have to be on hand to be there as well. If the US is massing that kind of invasion power in San Fran, believe me, I’m going to take counter-measures along the home front. :) The US may cause a bit of a mess up north, but I dont see it as being any ‘insta-win’ or anything close to it at this point.

All that said, I’ll give it a closer look in my next game as the US (and again as Japan) and see if this is something I think would be a worthy diversion of forces from what I consider the primary battle area of the DEI.

Yes, Japan is very strong, but we are starting to develop Allied counters. A lot of Allied strategy depends on when Japan attacks. Either the US or the UK will be bigger players depending if they attack early or late IME.

The primary thing for the US is the San Fran/Pearl/Australia/DEI chain. Keep that flowing and Japan will have a tough time. The Anzacs can also easily threaten the DEI (1 move from the Aussie naval base). This leads to 1-2 punches where the US clears out a Japanese cover force and the Anzacs sprint in for a quick invasion of one (or more) of the islands.

The UK depends completely on what Japan does. Japan has the capacity to corner and kill the Brit fleet fairly easily, but doing so will swing them totally out of position to oppose US/Anzac raids on the DEI. If Japan does come for the RN, your goal is to pull them all the way over to India. Dont oblige the Japanese by coming out to fight. If the Japanese wait for a few turns, I think minimal fleet additions (DDs for screening, SSs for spreading out Japanese DDs) are OK but yeah, for the most part it’s massive of conscripted Indian troops. You have plenty of planes to give offensive firepower.

We’ve also taken to having the Brits bring the AA gun with them (it’s like the Ark of the Covenant or something - the Japanese are afraid to attack it! :p ). This discourages Japanese attacks of a few troops and 8-10 planes. They can still do it, but it might be costly!

Yep, those set up cards are awesome. It’s a real shame that WotC couldn’t spend a bit more on this edition to polish it up.

I would say that that is a pretty good summary. How long you wait depends on what opportunities present themselves. J3 would be ‘ideal’ for me, but giving the Brits the 37 IPCs and letting them escape with one TR is something I’d prefer to avoid if possible. I’m thinking of a J2 attack next time depending on what the US does.

IMO it depends on how quickly you can get it into operation. 2x IC on the mainland is 24 IPC and THEN you start putting out troops. Meanwhile the US is making 55/turn and pumping it directly into the Pearl/Australian/DEI line.

IMO the best US strat early on is “hit 'em where they ain’t”. And yes, you can have a nice fleet at the Carolines, but with the US fleet intact and 55 IPCs worth of reinforcements its going to be tough going standing that off for long without massive expenditure yourself (which is harder to do if you are pumping early IPCs into ICs and massed ground troops).

Pretty much my experience is that one Japan’s initial fleet is whittled down she can no longer protect everything she needs to protect while fighting the ground war against China/UK. The J1 attack puts you considerably ‘behind schedule’ in mopping up the mainland (in exchange for slowing the Allies down at sea). The downside I see here is that the US is going come knocking FAR before you are done in Asia.

The goal of the later attack is to have that mainland well in hand before having to deal with the US en masse. The J1 attack disperses and dilutes the IJN a bit (depending on losses) while simultaneously allowing the US to come in full tilt at the same time. I’m not saying it’s doomed by any means, but the short-term payoff doesnt seem as worth it to me as the ‘slow and steady’. YMMV

Some of the attacks you have listed there are not enough overkill for me and in many cases you wont have much follow up on them in China.

For example:

1 Bomber from Japan destroys the Hawaiian transport, and with the assistance of the Japan airbase, can land on the Marshall Islands.

This isnt even possible with the US LBA at Pearl. They will Scramble the Fighter and the TAC and likely trade out well with your bomber.

o  1 Fighter from Formosa, 1 Bomber from Manchuria, and 1 Bomber from Japan wipe out the British Battleship and 2 Transports in SZ 37 around Malay.  The Fighter must land in Siam, while the 3 Bombers have enough movement to land in Kwangsi.  If you are uncomfortable with the odds, the Bomber in Kiangsu may also participate.

Quite possible, but also potentially expensive. Sure you are killing 20 IPCs of Brit BB, but you are risking 10 IPCs of Japanese air. If you wait and go later on you can often kill the Brit navy for almost zero cost by taking hits on BBs and/or Subs.

o  3 Infantry and 1 Artillery from Kwangsi move into Yunnan.  1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, and 1 Bomber (if not used against the British Battleship) fly to Yunnan, to land in Kwangsi after the fight.

You’ll obviously win here, but you are unlikely to kill them all on the first round. This means more potential losses of valuable ground troops in China. In addition, you will have less to hold against the all-important Chinese counter-attack.

1 Battleship and 1 Destroyer from the Caroline Islands moves to Sydney and destroys the Australian Destroyer and Transport.

If the Aussie hits, you’ll likely lose both to the RNZAF. If I’m the Allies, that’s a trade I’ll GLADLY make. Even if the DD doesnt hit in the initial battle they might still counter-attack and win (4x3 vs a 4 and a 2 with 3 hits). Japan cannot afford to lose her early superiority piecemeal.

The 2 Transports from Japan move 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, and 1 Artillery into the Philippines.  The Fighter and Tactical Bomber from SZ 35 also move in for the island attack.

Again, a pretty risky attack, not in terms of winning, but in terms of what you might lose in the process. That fight is far from overkill vs 2x2, 1x1, and 1x4. A few flukey dice and you could lose most of your ground pounders which will set you back quite a bit.

2 Infantry from Kiangsi attack Kwangtung.  Then several Fighters and Tacs fly in from Manchuria and Japan to help.

Ditto. Again, a winning odds battle, but still quite possible to take 2 hits and lose the ground forces. At the very least you have good odds of losing 1 Inf which will not easily be replaced on the continent.

IMO, while none of these attacks are ‘bad’, you are very vulnerable to a few strings of luck leaving you VERY weak on the ground. You have no follow-up to these attacks. In China, with no factory and no additional TRs, you risk becoming bogged down, especially with the Brits free to counter-attack into Yunnan. I consider Yunnan to be CRITICAL to the Japanese victory in Asia and you will need a lot of luck to keep it closed down.

Put it this way, if I HAD to attack on J1, I would likely follow something very similar to what you have here. It is a solid plan for a J1 attack. But IMO leaving the Allies alone for a few turns doesnt really alter the basic equation that Japan has a FAR superior military at the point of attack. What waiting does is allow Japan to position for less battles where the outcome can be remotely in doubt. The goal is to suffer minimal casualties on the turn of attack as well as have follow-up forces already headed into the battle. The idea is to have a more powerful sustained attack rather than a flash in the pan attempt at big success on turn 1.