Posts made by Xayd74

@gtg21:

I see your points, and think that it seems pretty sound.  I just cant help but be a little skeptical of too strong a reliance on one form of strategy.  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the conveyor system from WUS to Australia is critical, particularly if that region is going to be the emphasis of the game.  And I see your point about HI and WUS being weak - but ultimately secure.

I also dont care for a single victory strategy for the Allies, but it’s all I’ve found so far. And I’m now working out a nonJ1 technique to stall the US production line for as long as possible. There doesnt seem to be any way to stop once it gets rolling.

@gtg21:

I just wonder what the effect is if the system is stalled in Queensland by a Japanese player that has done more than just box in the UK, but essentially obliterated it and taken India.  Seems the Japanese player can then concentrate his force out the DEI or the Philippines and begin a concentrated effort of rolling you back (assuming you’ve attempted to expand into DEI).

So far with my conveyor strategy, India and Burma have never fallen. If India is taken, I would say the game is over regardless of what is going on elsewhere in the world. Much like Russia in 1984 and Revised, the whole game pivots on keeping the country that has land position in the primary theatre alive. If they fall, then everything crumbles.

@gtg21:

These approaches seem pretty sound.  I wonder if people claiming the game is out of balance (in favor of Japan) have ever really encountered something like this.

I was one of those thinking it was horribly out of balance, but I was making mistakes and playing old school. At this point, I’ve put a lot of time into it, enough to realize it’s actually ridiculously well balanced. At the end of each side’s turn every round, it looks like they’re gonna win. I havent experienced that very much in prior A&A games. It’s like watching the superbowl and knowing in the first 10 minutes who’s going to win. Lame! I want it to be a head race all the way to a photo finish. This game, with all it’s complexity, does that. I really have to tip my hat to Larry.

In the book, it says that when Mongolia’s borders are breached, they immediately populate (2, 1, 1, 2 respectively) and become allied with the faction opposing the attacker. I’m trying to decide what that means in regards to sparking war with the US.

Technically speaking, there are 3 “allied” factions in the game that respond differently to Japan.

• China is already at war with Japan, so nothing happens if Japan attacks them or vice versa.
• UK/ANZAC are not directly at war with Japan. If Japan attacks either of them, it brings both of them plus the US into the war. If either attacks Japan, Japan can retaliate against them both without bringing the US into it.
• The US cannot attack Japan until Japan attacks them or the US collection phase of round 3 arrives.

Based on that complexity, what exactly happens when you invade Mongolia on, say round 2, when Japan has shown no aggresion towards the UK, ANZAC or the US? In reality, the only faction opposing Japan at that time is China, which would change nothing treatywise.

I did some searching in the forums here, but didnt see any real discussion about Mongolia in circulation. I’m devising a nonJ1 attack scenario. In doing so, I’d like to redirect my unspent forces into Mongolia earlier than I do in a J1 scenario.

@gtg21:

How many turns is it taking you to establish this?  And does it depend on the UK and ANZAC fleets forming one such “resource bank”?   From what I’ve seen so far (which is admittedly limited), the Allies are put on their heels relatively quickly in this game and depending on the sizes of these “resource banks” that you’re creating, what is preventing the Japanese from hitting you at your flank and rolling the entire line?  Is this belt simply a SF to Queensland line, or are you extending it farther?

The goal for the conveyor belt is to have one loaded carrier with support ships in each of 4 locations.

• On the first turn, I move the San Fran carrier down to Hawaii, replacing it with a carrier purchase that is immediately loaded up with existing planes on WUS. I also take the tactical off of Hawaii (and move it onto WUS for later seating on a 3rd carrier). The WUS BS, DD and sub are moved down to hawaii. I also grab the phillipines and hawaii bombers and put them in australia (and put the WUS bomber in hawaii to later join them). I grab the phillipines fighter and place it in Malaya or Shan state. I also grab the two men on Hawaii and take them down to Queensland (and inf/tank on WUS and move them down to hawaii) to get the arms supply moving as fast as possible.
• On turn two, I build another AC and fighter (to couple with that hawaii tactical), a transport and a tank (to couple with one of the infantry on WUS) another fighter for the UK, and whatever ships I can turn out with focus on subs and DDs. This assumes a J1 attack. If not, I will likely turn out a fighter for the UK and a destroyer. No transport this round. Malayan fighter moves to Burma and Queensland fighter moves to Sumatra (which the UK occupied on round 1). All three bombers converge on South Australia or Northern Territory for eventual use in the assault on the JIN in DEI, and as a general deterrent. The J1 afforded WUS fighter moves to hawaii. At this time, there should be one DEI island available for US incursian (borneo or celebes). I take whichever with those two original hawaiian infantry.
• On turn three, the hawaiian DD and sub are moved downed to queensland, replaced in Hawaii by the WUS DD (or sub and DD if a J1 attack afforded me the IPC.) At this point, I have three noteworthy fleets, the weakest of which is in WUS. The java fighter also moves to Burma for additional support.

Now that’s three rounds to get a solid foundation set up. By this time the chinese are all dead, and there is Japanese focus on the UK. The UK has moved it’s two most valuable ships to Queensland to help secure that point in the belt. Japan spent two turns gaining control of the phillipines, which it turned out I didnt need. There is steady stream of US fighters coming in to support burma (and one from anzac whenever they can spare it). The general focus is to get one fighter every round into burma (until I have 5 there) and one transport one inf and whatever chugging its way along the belt to shore defenses or do whatever. By round 4, I’m starting to mass the Queensland fleet for it’s eventual bomber assisted assault on the JIN in DEI. It’s hard to say how many ships you’ll need, but Japan has to go first giving you a good idea of when you think you’re ready.

It may appear as though I’ve thinned the WUS defenses too much, but it takes 2 rounds for the japs to get there from Japan. On that same round, I can turn all production towards more ships and/or move ships back from Hawaii. Too thin at Hawaii you think? It could get taken almost for sure. But that jap fleet is destroyed that same round when the WUS and Queenslands fleet converge on Hawaii. And then Japan has no fleet at all and has to pull its remaining ships from the south seas. I would pray they would be that stupid.

All of this assumes you have a seasoned Japan player who knows how to defend his keep, where the valuable territory is, and how to level china fast. If he’s not so seasoned, chances are that a good deal of this wasnt necessary. In my most recent test, the only ally ever on its heels was China. The UK is boxed in, but that’s where the wanna be. There is no reason not to put the UK ships in queensland. They’ll just be destroyed by the JIN, costing the JIN next to nothing because of oblative hits.

@Uncle_Joe:

FWIW, I consider Infantry/Tank sort of overkill. Infantry/Art is more economical for similar punch. For tanks you are paying for the mobility which will rarely be used in the Pacific (unless you land in FIC or something). An Infantry/Tank combo attacks at ‘4’ total and takes 2 hits for 9 IPCs. Inf/Art also attacks at ‘4’, but only costs 7 IPCs. Granted you are a little more fragile with the Inf/Art but I think that is worth the ~30% cost break.

I’d say I do mostly inf/tank attack and pepper in inf/inf to mainly hold defensively. But the tanks are also meant to hold defense, like in Malaya. And of course a tank/inf defends a better than an art/inf. Once you get 3 tanks and inf in Malaya, you can push forward after the UK softens them up a bit. And then I do use the mobility to start depriving Japan of IPCs, sometimes even bringing the chinese back into the game. Yes, they can probably only purchase one man, but he may be hard to get to with jap forces sandwiched at the UK front.

And for everyone else, the “bad” moves are not bad. I dont know how that term got started. They’re merely risky. And they’re really only risky in that you’re losing your transport. The men and equipment will reach their destination. And bear in mind the strategy as a whole is not random. It’s coordinated chaos designed to provide a lot of allied flexibility.

@Uncle_Joe:

The problem is troops and transport shortages. Yes, leaving all of the islands ungarrisoned is a recipe for disaster but it’s tough to have enough combat power to leave some on each critical island and still have enough to push into India/China in time.

I’m one that usually strips the islands bare and uses those troops for attack, but that can be costly if you cant hold the Allies out of the area….

Same here. The two boys on the Carolines and Palau are the first to go.

To me, the DEI seems to be the most important contested area on the map. You have to have all 4 for the 5 IPC bonus.

BTW, there are various IPC bonuses in this version of the game that may not have existed in the ones you’ve played.

As of last night, I would not say that full control is necessary for either an allied or a japanese victory. But Japan seems to suffer more so for not controlling it.

Since this will be your first game, I’m presuming you’ll be allied and coached in your play of china or anzac or both. Playing china is cookie cutter and quick. How you play anzac depends on the global technique of the US player, so you’ll want to get with him to support his plan. Anzac is pretty minor in the moves and purchasing, so the chance of blunder is small, so long as you coordinate with the US player’s strategy.

So the AE boards dont fold at all? They just like up next to each other?
What are the dimensions of the boards?
And of the box?

I went ahead and tried those black and sliver binding clips on the P1940 board. Yes, they did create a very minor impression, but it’s very slight.

Edit: Hmm, nevermind. I just checked out pricing on the AE. It looks like if I parted with only $250 I would be lucky. Game came out less than 2 years ago too! And this is why I’m buying P1940 and E1940 immediately. If the games are going to cost $70 or $80 when they’re brand new and in print, just imagine what they’ll cost when they’re out of print! Which btw seems to always happen 1 yr after release.

I remember when I bought Civilization, Adv Civ and Western Expansion at a game shop for $80, I felt a bit ripped off. That must have been 15 or 20 years ago. Now I look that stuff up and you’d have to part with $400 for them. I pretty much figured out then that I’d have to buy Avalon Hill games upon release or suffer the consequences. It absolutely blew my mind that Adv Civ is that good and AH never put it back into print. WTH?

The way I interpret Uncle Joe’s hit and run strat is not necessarily sending random transports or subs all around the map to annoy or spread out the japanese fleet. One or two ships or men in several locations performing uncoordinated attacks or dumps isn’t going to soak up enough jap IPCs to turn the tide, not in my experience (since ties effectively go to the defender).

Instead, I am creating noteworthy (but not large) resources banks in a line across the Pacific. Each fleet itself is not big enough to commit a significance japanese offensive against it, especially when you consider there are two noteworthy resources on either side of that seemingly defenseless target that can both converge in one move to finish any remaining ships in the japanese offensive. Once this line is created, you have a solid foundation for building resources in San Fran that immediately appear on the other side of the map (through the conveyor belt shuffle). Before the belt is created though, you are sending 1 transport at a time (the first with 2 infantry and the rest with 1 inf and 1 tank) down into certain destruction. Yes, the men will land where you wanted them, but the transport is dead. It seems desperate and foolishly risky to do this just to offload a couple of men, but man it adds up quickly while not appearing to the japanese to be a big problem.

@McMan:

After reading up the forums, I have yet another round of questions about obtaining and Allied victory. Having only played three games, these are only my thoughts, but any input would be helpful. First, although the majority now feel that the game is balanced, I find it hard to imagine Japan’s downfall. The causes for this: Japan’s airforce, 10,000 planes strong, and the DEI. The DEI appear to me to be “swing territories.” They contain enough IPC’s either to give Japan almost a production advantage over the US, or to give the UK enough IPC’s to resist Japan. Either way, a quick victory for one side or the other is assured. However, with Japan’s airforce and massive fleet, they can take and hold the DEI fairly easily. Unless the Jap player is some kind of idiot, China and Britain will be smashed quickly, leaving Japan with only one victory city to go while outproducing the US and ANZAC. Some players have said that to defeat Japan, the Allies need to make what appear to be “bad moves” in order to spread Japan out. What does this kind of strategy look like? Also, what’s this talk of games being 20-25 turns long? My games usually last no more than 5… will that begin to change as my friends and I get more experienced?

• Is your UK player buying at least one additional antiaircraft to cover burma?

• Is he moving his BS and Cruiser to augment the Queensland SZ defense? (those UK ships just get destroyed otherwise while JIN just takes repairable hits)

• Is he using his two transports to populate the two nearby DEI islands immediately? (yes, he loses them, but he doesnt need them after that)

• Is your US player purchasing planes and relocating some of the existing ones to stack in Burma?

• Is he stacking bombers in Australia to augment a fleet engagement in the DEI?

• Is your ANZAC player stashing planes in DEI territories?

• Is he sacking the occasional transport to dump men and equipment in Malaya or the DEI?

Just last night, I ran another simulation using the conveyer belt technique (similar to Uncle Joe’s risky moves technique) (I have this detailed out in my “2 Ideas for the Allies” thread), but this time with Japan not only being aware of it, but actively attempting to prevent it by stationing a growing fleet (that started out large btw) in Borneo. If this is the only Allied path to Victory, a seasoned japan player should know what to do. I never moved or split the Borneo fleet to chase down stray ships (except for planes popping transports).

The idea here was not to gain control of the DEI, but to prevent the Allies from having it. Moving the Japanese DEI fleet around for various reasons kept losing it the DEI in prior simulations. The jap KwangTung MIC was creating ships and MI for the DEI and asian attack fronts. Diverting so many IPCs to the Borneo fleet to lessen the damage from the eventual attack from the Queensland US fleet actually didnt hurt me that much in the asian attacks, but it WAS noticeable. I even stationed 12 jap planes in FIC to finish any remaining US ships that survived an attack on Borneo.

BUT, here’s what happened… The US fleet destroyed the very sizable JIN in Borneo (with the help of 3 bombers they had stashed in australia). They had one BS and AC left (each with one point of dmg) and the AC had its two planes. The UK (on it’s turn) moved the BS and Cruiser in to support the remaining ships, and ANZAC moved in its destroyer as well. The 12 FIC japanese planes still attacked on the next turn, destroying the Allied Borneo fleet, but losing 5 planes in doing so. That japs then moved down the existing fleet from Kwangtung to attempt to re-establish control of the DEI.

However at this point, The UK had 14 infantry, 10 fighters and 2 tackies (6 of those fighters belonged to US and ANZAC) in Burma. They were dug in and Japan wasn’t going to get them out before the US recaptured the DEI permanently. Because there was an antiaircraft in Burma, Japan was losing planes attacking it initially, and wasnt willing to risk its planes any longer (after so many fighters had been amassed to protect it). At that point, japan went with a mix of tank and MI, which worked well, but it just want enough because the frakkin US had sent so many planes to defend Burma. At this point, the game was over because of the superior IPC production of the allies. So what did I learn from this?

• It is not immediately evident to me how to prevent the US conveyor belt from smashing into the DEI, even when I committed perhaps too many resources into preventing it!
• The Allies do not need control of the DEI to win the game. They just have to make sure Japan doesnt have it.
• Australia is critical to the allied arms supply war effort. Subsequently, the phillipines and carolines were kind of irrelevant.
• Japan should not waste time taking over Mongolia. The moment the chinese are gone, redirect 5 men and the 4 bombers to capture it quickly.
• Keep the Japanese Borneo fleet where it is, and build an airbase there. Then put at least 2 fighters and 2 tackies on the island for scramble defense (to offset US bombers engaging the Borneo fleet from australia during a US push into the DEI) and attack availability. These planes were doing much anymore anyway. The japs tanks had taken over by then for the assault on the UK.
• I’m thinking about having Japan move down it’s Manchurian antiaircraft down to Yunnan to offset UK plane based pushes into that province.
• Maybe I shouldn’t be doing my beloved J1 attack. The IPC numbers seem almost the same to me (taking over all those valuable spots right away), so I really dont want to not do it. But the Allied combined IPC production has become a real nuissance!

@kcdzim:

Ummmm……  Not really throwing a brick, but you’re kidding about that being the Anniversary edition map, right?  The Anni edition map is the same backdrop as the AA42 map, with more territories.  You do realize that, right?  I hope.  Cause that’s not even IL’s finalized map, and it probably is paint shop pro generated to print for those who can’t afford or find the real thing anymore.

Well no wonder it looked so corny! No I wasnt kidding. When I was doing all my map searching of the various editions, I was mighty confused by all the various renditions of what appeared to be the same game, not to mention all the fan generated maps. With no one to help me, I did conclude this was the Anniversary Edition map. If the AE and 1942 effectively had the same map, I must not have realized the distinction.

Since we’re helping me clear up this misunderstanding, can someone with the AE detail how the map folds an it’s dimensions? I mean is it like the 6way revised edition or more like P1940? I saw this picture that I believe is correct…

It looks a bit like 3 double folding gameboards, which I would definitely prefer. Also, the 1984 edition box is large whereas the 2004 revised is much smaller. What is the size of the AE? I realize that question may be a tall order because someone would have to have all 3! And finally, is there a downside to the AE? I think I might just pick it up if it meets my criteria.

Well this is an opinion of course. I got into A&A about a year ago. By that time, I had several choices for the “main game”. Pacific (both versions) for example is an offshoot that doesnt include the complete traditional A&A global territory. For me, I wanted a “complete” game first, and then I might branch out to one of the “subgames”.

My choices (when was I ready to purchase) where the 1984 edition, the revised (2004) edition, 1942 and the 50th Anniversary Edition. I am very badly colorblind. The 1984 map that my friend would bring over confused me (during the learning stages) because the UK and neutral territories look the same color to me. So for me it was very important that the map had distinctive coloring, so no 1984 edition. Also, it looked a bit cartoony.

But I also wanted it to be pretty, so no Anniversary edition. I didnt care for the paint shop pro generated image it appeared to be. Hopefully I dont get bricks thrown at me for saying that.

The 1942 edition seem to have a lot stigmas associated with it, primarily because of a lack of physical IPCs. To be honest, I never really gave this game a chance because so many folks were dissing it. However, the map is actually fairly pretty. It’s possible that 1942 is lame (I’ve never played it), or maybe it just got a bad start because of the dissing like a failed MMO launch.

I really liked the look of the Revised edition map. It’s very easy to distinctively see everything, and everyone just had good stuff to say about it. Ironicly, the map itself is probably the only problem. The 6way folding nature of it makes is a bit fragile. They did this to reduce the box size for a number of reasons. I prefer a larger box so I can stow plastic bins for all the pieces. I love this version of the game, so I’m real pleased with it. Whereas I felt the 1984 version was slanted in favor of the Allies because of the easy access to France,I felt this game tipped it back towards the Axis with 3/3 tanks and lot’s more zones.

A&A Pacific 1940 cant really be compared to these others versions of the game because it’s not the same arena. However, I will tell you a ton of thought (and complexity) has gone into it as compared with the other versions I’ve played. The detail, scale and materials quality is quite a bit higher as well. It comes off as an $80 game to me. In my growing experience, who is winning seems to flip from round to round, making it a much enjoyable experience.

I see. I thought air bases enhanced the sea zone that borders the land they’re on.

I guess I’ll have to test it with J1 and w/o. My poor 1940 edition is receiving a heck of a workout. Btw Uncle Joe, thanks for your input. It’s been real valuable.

What is “Truk” again?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.axisandallies.org/files/images/aap1940-map.preview.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.axisandallies.org/taxonomy/term/13&h=545&w=640&sz=60&tbnid=enNfRTZrX6JN_M:&tbnh=117&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daxis%2Band%2Ballies%2Bpacific%2B1940%2Bmap&usg=__bGJj_MS36A5DQooYdL3RubmJSOE=&ei=SAFnS4_rLI2wtgfencGuBg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&ved=0CB8Q9QEwBg

If you check out the map here, you can see NSW (IC) is in range of the japanese carolines fleet. And you would have the air power from the carolines carrier. So long as you specified the planes for NSW engagement, they would not be locked down to the naval battle with the destroyer. In retrospect however, I think it is better to go down to the DEI with the JIN and establish a belt blockade there (taking Borneo for a J1 assault or Celebes if not), ensuring that you do not divert the fleet for bombardment assistance in the asian assault. In my games, I perform a J1 attack and build a MIC in KwangTung in the 2nd round. From there I usually build mech infantry and the occasional ship. If I instead built more ships and fewer land units to guarantee the prevention of allied DEI control, the US would be very hard pressed to get in there. The eventual goal would be to sack the Queensland US fleet, but never pulling enough ships from DEI to weaken it too much. You have to take into account the us fighters protecting Burma could be temporarily called into service to take out a japanese DEI fleet.

Doing all of this would slow the asian fight, but in my experience the UK cannot push forward without the DEI support. As for the slow number of ground units making their way into asia from the KwangTung MIC, that doesnt really matter a whole lot against the Chinese. The starting forces are always enough to finish them at the end of round three.

Stacking Bombers on midway is a huge help for an attack against japan. Stacking fighters/tackies on Iwo Jima would be a big help as well. However, I’ve yet to see an allied victory using the “attack japan before UK falls” technique. Scrambling just shreds it.

Well let me ask this. It’s been my experience that a J1 attack is favorable to Japan, but I havent tried not doing it with this new conveyor belt technique. The increased production helps the US get the ball rolling a lot sooner, and losing the Phillipines doesnt seem to hurt the USA hardly at all. I wonder if maybe I should attack the allies, regardless of the benefits. It takes 3 rounds to wipe out the chinese anyway. Maybe I should wait?

Uncle Joe, what is your take on attacking NSW on J1? You can only get one infantry there, but you do get planes to pretty much guarantee only one defensive roll would occur. I dont think you can get the bombardment hit because of the destroyer sitting there. If that one infantry doesnt defend, then you get the Anzac IPC. That will stop them for two rounds. Even though they will regain control on their turn, they will have no starting IPC. Further, Japan is up by 7 IPC during the round1 collection.

I personally believe that stopping the conveyor belt technique is best done in australia. Get a japanese fleet down that can survive. Then get another fleet over to the DEI at a later time. Or you could control Celebes on J1 to assure the brits dont get it, and then rather than using your Japanese DEI fleet to bombard the UK to assist in the Asian theatre, you create your own conveyor belt, moving eastward to Australia, but going no further.

After all my testing, I find that the allies have only one coordinated plan for victory. A seasoned Japan player will know it. If there is way to counter the belt, that would be pretty bad.

One other thing for the belt technique for the Allies… When the US had a pretty good belt going, I spent 3 turns with Anzac building a loaded carrier to eliminate the need for the US carrier (moving it to DEI for a 2 carrier force). I mistakenly created an Anzac tactical bomber when I should have made two fighters. It’s the one circumstance where I’ve seen a need for a two fighter carrier.

I implemented the tactic of sending US transports through the Carolines. It did not work, but I also made some mistakes. After correcting them, the allies won in a duplicatable fashion.

#1 - I had not purchased any extra AA for the brits in prior games. I don’t know why it took so long to occur to me, but it finally did and worked fairly well.

#2 - It also should have occurred to me (because of my prior experience with A&A 1984 and 2004) that the US should be sending fighters to support the UK, just like the US and UK did for Russia in the prior games. The US lost several planes in defense of the UK, but it wasn’t that bad. Further, combined with a bomber, a swarm of the planes can augment a small fleet destined to engage the japanese east indies fleet. This was very successful and got the US in the game. By the time it was obvious the allies had won, there were 6 US fighters, 1 ANZAC and 1 UK fighter creating an impenetrable stack in Burma.

#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, Queensland 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.

The last technique was especially important because it meant that (with duplicate fleets) you could build in San Fran and move the men and equipment down to the DEI in one turn (via the 1move conveyor belt shuffle). This so far seems the only way to get the US into the fight reliably. I see no obvious way for Japan to counter this, with the exception of going after Australia early. However, that seemed fairly risky for me. In my next attempt, I will have Japan go after it very quickly. Once the conveyor belt gets going, it’s overtly risky to engage it.

@xzorn:

You mentioned something about 7 US transports? I use 3. All of the money needs to go into naval power to take out the Japanese naval power. The ground troops don’t need to be that numerous, since they’ll have so much naval support and will likely only be taking coastal territories.

It occured to me that I only needed 4 since this isnt an asian invasion, with the idea being to drop an infantry and artillery in each of the DEI, but I wanted two more transports anyway to reconquer the Phillipines and have a little bit of slack if I lose a few.

@Hobbes:

J doesn’t have to actually attack Hawaii, merely deadzone its sea zone to stall the advance of the US fleet. With the US I’d rather to focus on moving the US fleet to NSW since it places it on reach of Java and Celebes. If the US takes Java away from J and then ANZAC UK lands planes there it can be a major pain for Japan to retake since only bombers in Phillipines or carrier planes can reach it.

Now that, my friend, works! In fact, I’ll just go straight from Hawaii to the previously unimportant Carolines, which puts me in strike range of all my previous targets and the DEI. True, the US wont have an any production capability overseas, but the southern JIN will be no match for US Navy. US Navy losses will probably be minor, as there are several ports at which to repair ablative hits. This inherently means the US fleet will be mostly intact for a return to Hawaii, picking up the Phillipines along the way. If the UK survived, and it should have, that will turn the tide of the Asian theatre against the japs.

@Hobbes:

I’ve only played 4 games yet, and J only won in 1 of those. Never seen a J1 attack but from the discussions on the forums and my own calculations it is risky but offers J the best chance to reach economic parity with the allies. Unless J has the 3 aircraft carriers in range of Hawaii it is impossible to destroy the initial US fleet and airforce if it moves there. Plus UK and ANZAC can land their fighters on Borneo (or any other of the DEI, if they conquer it) which will force it to position assets to take the islands.

There is no need for Japan to attack Hawaii or the WUS. I might consider Midway to avert the bomber threat, but Japan is best served allowing the US to attack them. In fact, neither Honolulu nor WUS are needed for a Japanese victory. The JIN should remain in SZ6 as much as possible to retain the scramble benefit.

@Vareel:

If Japan abandons Caroline, the US should move in and take it on US2, followed up with ANZAC landing her planes there.  Carolines is a great base to launch an assault into either of the US’s NOs, threatens 2 DEI’s, and a good amount of Asia.

An assault from ANZAC? Doesnt seem to me like they’re ever in a position to assault anything with a mere 15 IPC of production (gained at the end of round 2).