I appreciate your site, takes me back a few decades, 1986/87 my cousins introduced me to A&A, first edition with commander in chief rules, the axis were hard pressed to offer a challenging counter. Japan Can take Hawaii turn one, the Eastern US fighter couldn't be involved in the counter attack, losing the more expensive aircraft does protect His Majesties fleet from counter attack. I don't always prefer all or nothing strategies, dice can read minds..lol. Japan turn one, 1 sub,1 fighter & 1 bomber attacking the US Hawaii fleet, it's a far less costly gamble with cold dice, no shipping to protect so planning is more certain. A good buddy used to always take his first English turn with 1 fighter and 2 amphibious infantry from India to Kwangtung and half the time get paid $3 while landing the fighters somewhere in China. Often his Russia took Manchuria turn 1, losing Kwangtung also was a crotch kick to Japan and he knew it. There was no restricted Russian turn 1 attack in those days.
Worth noting is that the attacker retreat step is after the sub retreat step. That means that after 2 hits and an escaping USA sub, the Japanese fleet cannot retreat (from nothing) and must stay. I don’t think that just the 20% chance on an escaping USA sub makes this attack ‘deeply flawed’. But there is also an 11% chance that Japan will lose 3 units in the first and probably only round. With only 1 cheap unit that’s already a blow, and the counterattack will be killing. Add that to the escaping USA sub, and yes: this 'standard' attack is flawed.
A couple times I have sent a transport with 2 men and the third fighter you were mentioning to the Hawaiian islands to take it over on J1. USA cannot attack back as the transport is another soak and their fighter cannot land. This threatens USA motherland J2 and even a March on Brazil/Panama or Alaska if you would like. It takes away from the March into Asia by 2 men but if you buy 3 transports J1 I believe that loss is mitigated in the following rounds. What’re your thoughts on this? My brothers are not the best players so I usually win regardless but I would like some info from a pro.
Since the USA has such a strong economy and nearly instant access to all the territories from Alaska to Panama - and since so much more attainable and sustainable IPC are in Asia, I see any effort past Hawaii as a raid only. This might be useful for snatching the 84 IPC economic victory but otherwise takes more out of Japan than the USA. That's been my experience anyway. All that being said, Hawaii needs to be taken by the Japanese, I just usually do it on J2 or J3.
I did some searching and already Don Rae himself suggested a different attack: " In advanced play only, using Essay #3's tactics.... This Japanese attack force on Pearl Harbor should consist of the following: 1 battleship (Japan) 1 submarine 2 fighters (one from Japan, one from the carrier) 1 bomber " Calling it 'advanced play' instead of admitting that the earlier adviced attack is flawed against better players 😀
I actually forgot about that recommendation - thanks for pointing this out. I remember that I wrote that off as it essentially sacrifices a battleship out of the gate. It is such a submissive and pessimistic move in my opinion.
Hey GC, What do you think of a move on India for J1 in classic ? 2 infantry and fighter from indochina 2 infantry from Philippines Fighter from Manchuria Bomber from Japan Fighter off carrier knocks our the British transport off India
It can certainly be done. However, since the UK go before the Japanese, there may be no transport present. There may also be extra Russian and British pieces present or none at all. I stick with the J1 opener advertised in this video as it seems to have the most flexibility for turns 2/3 and onward - but that could changed based on what the British/Russians did and what optional rules are or are not being played with.
Hey GC, Thanks for your response . If the British transport is not there , all the better because then that’s one extra attack unit available for the capture of India. I think a move on Egypt and India on G1 and J1 is a strategy I’d like to try . I never thought of going after Egypt on G1 , because I wouldn’t entertain the loss of the battleship . But your strategic video alerted me to the poweful effect that the capture of Egypt in the 1st round can have . That , in connection with an invasion of India on J1 , strike’s me as the best way to put the Brits on their heals straight away.
@@1CASSIODORUS that's my play, yep. Be advised a very common UK 'counter play' is to leave a single infantry in India then use the transport and two loaded infantry to counter-attack in Egypt along with the fighter from India and infantry from Trans-Jordan. India is offered up to the Japanese but will cost in terms of fewer attack pieces in China. The game gets more competitive from there... Happy Gaming. Let me know if you'd ever like to play via email on TripleA.
Controversial opinion? Instead of losing a fighter in the American counter-attack, maybe lose a battleship instead? The only thing they're really good for is the occasional coastal bombardment. Fighters are more useful because they're more flexible.
I appreciate your site, takes me back a few decades, 1986/87 my cousins introduced me to A&A, first edition with commander in chief rules, the axis were hard pressed to offer a challenging counter. Japan Can take Hawaii turn one, the Eastern US fighter couldn't be involved in the counter attack, losing the more expensive aircraft does protect His Majesties fleet from counter attack. I don't always prefer all or nothing strategies, dice can read minds..lol. Japan turn one, 1 sub,1 fighter & 1 bomber attacking the US Hawaii fleet, it's a far less costly gamble with cold dice, no shipping to protect so planning is more certain. A good buddy used to always take his first English turn with 1 fighter and 2 amphibious infantry from India to Kwangtung and half the time get paid $3 while landing the fighters somewhere in China. Often his Russia took Manchuria turn 1, losing Kwangtung also was a crotch kick to Japan and he knew it. There was no restricted Russian turn 1 attack in those days.
Love it
Keep it up brother
Worth noting is that the attacker retreat step is after the sub retreat step. That means that after 2 hits and an escaping USA sub, the Japanese fleet cannot retreat (from nothing) and must stay.
I don’t think that just the 20% chance on an escaping USA sub makes this attack ‘deeply flawed’. But there is also an 11% chance that Japan will lose 3 units in the first and probably only round. With only 1 cheap unit that’s already a blow, and the counterattack will be killing. Add that to the escaping USA sub, and yes: this 'standard' attack is flawed.
Another great video.
A couple times I have sent a transport with 2 men and the third fighter you were mentioning to the Hawaiian islands to take it over on J1. USA cannot attack back as the transport is another soak and their fighter cannot land. This threatens USA motherland J2 and even a March on Brazil/Panama or Alaska if you would like. It takes away from the March into Asia by 2 men but if you buy 3 transports J1 I believe that loss is mitigated in the following rounds. What’re your thoughts on this? My brothers are not the best players so I usually win regardless but I would like some info from a pro.
Since the USA has such a strong economy and nearly instant access to all the territories from Alaska to Panama - and since so much more attainable and sustainable IPC are in Asia, I see any effort past Hawaii as a raid only. This might be useful for snatching the 84 IPC economic victory but otherwise takes more out of Japan than the USA. That's been my experience anyway. All that being said, Hawaii needs to be taken by the Japanese, I just usually do it on J2 or J3.
I did some searching and already Don Rae himself suggested a different attack:
"
In advanced play only, using Essay #3's tactics....
This Japanese attack force on Pearl Harbor should consist of the following:
1 battleship (Japan)
1 submarine
2 fighters (one from Japan, one from the carrier)
1 bomber
"
Calling it 'advanced play' instead of admitting that the earlier adviced attack is flawed against better players 😀
I actually forgot about that recommendation - thanks for pointing this out. I remember that I wrote that off as it essentially sacrifices a battleship out of the gate. It is such a submissive and pessimistic move in my opinion.
Hey GC,
What do you think of a move on India for J1 in classic ?
2 infantry and fighter from indochina
2 infantry from Philippines
Fighter from Manchuria
Bomber from Japan
Fighter off carrier knocks our the British transport off India
It can certainly be done. However, since the UK go before the Japanese, there may be no transport present. There may also be extra Russian and British pieces present or none at all. I stick with the J1 opener advertised in this video as it seems to have the most flexibility for turns 2/3 and onward - but that could changed based on what the British/Russians did and what optional rules are or are not being played with.
Hey GC,
Thanks for your response . If the British transport is not there , all the better because then that’s one extra attack unit available for the capture of India.
I think a move on Egypt and India on G1 and J1 is a strategy I’d like to try . I never thought of going after Egypt on G1 , because I wouldn’t entertain the loss of the battleship . But your strategic video alerted me to the poweful effect that the capture of Egypt in the 1st round can have . That , in connection with an invasion of India on J1 , strike’s me as the best way to put the Brits on their heals straight away.
@@1CASSIODORUS that's my play, yep. Be advised a very common UK 'counter play' is to leave a single infantry in India then use the transport and two loaded infantry to counter-attack in Egypt along with the fighter from India and infantry from Trans-Jordan. India is offered up to the Japanese but will cost in terms of fewer attack pieces in China. The game gets more competitive from there... Happy Gaming. Let me know if you'd ever like to play via email on TripleA.
The roundels on 84 models is hideous. TripleA should get a C&D.
Controversial opinion? Instead of losing a fighter in the American counter-attack, maybe lose a battleship instead? The only thing they're really good for is the occasional coastal bombardment. Fighters are more useful because they're more flexible.
You and I are of like mind. There was much more I wanted to say - that was one of them - but left it out.