You, sir, are a genius Don's essays got partway there, but I think you've really optimized the play. I love the idea of giving your opponents hard choices!
Hey thank! If you liked this video, you’ll LOVE the video on my channel called “AnA Clinic: the J1 in Classic. I still run my games of Classic like this in 2023 with one exception: I purchase three transports on J1. Happy gaming.
the problem that most people do not see is the counter attach from the US. the US can bring the battleship, transport (for cannon fodder) 2 fighters and a bomber. that is 2 fours and 2 threes. japan loses there entire navy in one turn.
In my opinion, this represents the battle of Midway, the US counter attack is potentially the end of the Japanese fleet. Taking the Hawaiian island helps Japan by denying a landing zone for the Eastern US fighter, now it's 3 combat units against probably 5 or more. Taking allied $$ that is distant seems to be more permanent than the back & forth monies associated with the Asian territories, beginning this more permanent damage sooner goes a long way to the economic parity the Axis need when buying time
@@mikedearing6352 You would love the video in my channel titled, "The J1 in Classic". Also, you're the only one who I've seen share this sentiment: that the closer approximation to this opener is the battle of Midway (really in nearly every way except sea zone). 100% agree.
Just three minutes into this video, and I have to ask, before I completely forget, if we can get an overall view of the board at the start, as I see no IC in India, and this is starting to confuse me a bit. I know, you said right at the beginning, this wasn't for the novice player, but for me and probably a great many others, it might be better to make things clearer and easier to follow, just my initial impressions, 3 minutes into this current video, of a rather great series! EDIT: now at five minutes in, I see you caught the IC thing, but now I notice that, according to Don, the UK transport shuttled guys from the middle east over to india, whereas I had thought that your move was to drop it down to Australia? More later, back to the rest of your video... Edit: Finished, and impressive! I've played this out this way, and also done other stuff not shown, but as always, you give a clear and concise description and we see some good things on the board at this point.
Late to the channel, but I love your videos. I played AaA weekly with a friend in the 90ties. We found that attacking the US fleet was indeed not a good move for Japan, they need extra income and wasting material without gaining IPC's is pointless. We found first turn placing an idustrial complex in Sinkiang very useful. It costs as much as two transports but it means you can place two tanks every turn on the mainland. Japan has a lot of fighters, you want to move as fast as you can so attacking with tanks and fighters can speed Japan up once they break Russian and US resistance.
No worries about being late. I review my channel once a year at least to make sure everything posted here is still something I believe in. This video was slightly amended in a video later on titled, "Where I changed my mind". Congrats on solving the Pacific riddle. You and your friend were in a minority. To this day, I still get opponents who cannot help themselves and go for it anyway. I do a deep analysis on that exact attack in a later video on this channel titled, "The J1 in Classic". On the IC purchase, I strongly recommend against this for the reason you point out: its practically the cost of two transports. The added benefit of two transports is a more robust IJN navy in the Pacific but it also harnesses the limitless potential of the IC on Japan. "Flip-shucking" units into FIC and then Manchuria on the next turn and back again precludes the need for any IC with the added benefit of putting an incredible amount of pressure on the Allies in Egypt, Trans Jordan and Syria (since the transports off FIC can hit those territories should they so desire). The whole thing is lethally efficient and cannot be "captured" or "bombed" like an IC. If you'd ever like a friendly game, I'm always here - I'm always playing. =) Classic is still the absolute best version in playability and even balance imo.
Thanks for the inivitation. I accept your point about the IC. We never went into strategic bombing anywhere else than on Germany. Bombers are expensive. We had a series of games where either Japan invaded Alsaka by surprise because the Allied player wasn't paying attention, mainly because they moved their Pacific fleet to the Atlantic while the Japanese fleet was fully intact. A sneaky Allied mover would be the US building an IC in Alaska, pressuring Japan, when they did not clear the Russians from the Soviet Far East. It was always fun exploring all kinds of strategies and we never cared about who won. The debriefing after the game was often the most enjoyable part!@@thegoodcaptain1217
I wholeheartedly agree with the Tokyo Express of transports, but not the leaving of Pearl harbor alone though! I wouldn't take my bomber out as a casualty either, it's just too expensive in this version+ it has great range and can bomb factories as well!!!
While I can see taking the bomber as a casualty, in order to have a hawaiian fleet with 4@4 + 1@3 on the defense against the 2@3 + 2@4 + transport bullet stopper of the american potential counter-attack, it would make much more sense to have simply brought along an empty transport of your own. Yes, this is not something that Japan can do every time, depending on the ground situation in SE Asia, and what the allies have done up to this point, but it should be kept in mind. Also, if I'm not going to redo PH, then I tend to do one of three things, one of which is shown in this video, and a second is just a bit different, while the third is totally different.
I agree with this one, actually. I've always hated the notion that Japan ought to Pearl Harbor J1 in almost every edition of A&A. It's such a waste of your starting Air Force which is really needed in guaranteeing one-round kills on the mainland (which limits casualties to keep your momentum up). Keeping momentum as Japan is critical, as you don't have a steady stream of land reinforcements until J2/J3 depending on your build, and you need to KO India ASAP if you want to be helpful to the overall Axis cause.
But... but... it's historically inaccurate! The US wouldn't have been in the war if not for Pearl Harbor! ... kinda. But yes, I agree with the sentiment that casualties in the Pacific are a waste for both the US and Japanese players.
@@Dedread This game technically starts after Pearl Harbor has happened. It kicks off in Spring, 1942. The closest approximation to the naval opener would be the battle of Midway albeit it's in a different zone...
Builds are correct, Japan takes one infantry from japan and one from wake island and invades Hawaii, They bring one fighter from japan to attack US fleet and bring sub, BB. Second 2 infantry and 2 fighters against the 2 US infantry, 1 bomber and 4 infantry against the 1 US fighter and 2 US infantry. 2nd transport drops off 2 infantry in Indo during NCM
@@KaiserWilhelmIV All my videos are in strict adherence to the out-of-box rules (2nd Edition) that came with the Milton Bradley edition of AnA. So there are no two hit battleships. Check out my "Where I Changed My Mind" video though for a sharpened up Japan strategy commentary (I still stand by the tactics discussed in this video as of this writing).
In my opinion, this represents the battle of Midway, the US counter attack is potentially the end of the Japanese fleet. Taking the Hawaiian island helps Japan by denying a landing zone for the Eastern US fighter, now it's 3 combat units against probably 5 or more. Taking allied $$ that is distant seems to be more permanent than the back & forth monies associated with the Asian territories, beginning this more permanent damage sooner goes a long way to economic parity
Hey Camden. Its just slightly too long to explain in a post. I edited Don's Essays though. Just download this word document: www.mediafire.com/file/s1fbbddjic865af/Don_Rae_Hindsight_2020.docx/file The answer you're looking for is on page 20 and then starting on page 35.
Turn 3 if not sooner, sometimes much sooner. This is done with overwhelming force usually without a battle, via Japanese transports ability to drop off a large force in French-Indo. Let me know if you would like to play a game sometime.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks played a game with my play group I was Japan I took Russia from behind then got in a huge stall mate for like four hours then we quit with no clear winner except that we did get economic victory but we don’t play economic victory.
Hey, thanks for the comment. I have not yet seen a workable KJF either in my group or via play by forums or any of my online games. My invitation for (a) game(s) with you still stands. And I have no problem using the optional rule in the back of the manual that allows for naval builds in occupied sea zones. Good to hear from you!
Japan cannot match the US ship for ship...1 AC and 2 subs in the first round, and 4 subs every round after that leaves the US laughing...if Japan buys navy each turn to "keep up" perfect, cause they haven't done much against Russia or UK on the mainland then, and along about turn 6-7 there's gonna be a mighty big naval battle occur for the right to occupy Japans harbor...if they don't buy any navy and concentrate on the mainland-more perfect!...US destroys Japans navy easily on the 3rd or 4th turn(or drives it away from their homeland making it useless), starts taking all of Japans islands, AND also reinforces Russia from Alaska to Soviet far East...meanwhile...the UK builds 3 inf a turn in India, and concentrates on putting 4 inf a turn onto Finland for Karelia,(or maybe puts an IC in South Africa too) and Russia builds only inf for Karelia...between turn 3 and 7, the US will begin to overwhelm Japan and once the troops start transporting its just a matter of time...IMO this is the ideal scenario to play a KJF, especially if Germany doesn't attack the UK/Russia fleet
Could you describe how a Kill Japan First (KJF) strategy works, and how the German player tends to do against Russia in the meantime? I would have thought that KJF gives too much time to the German player to take Africa and start to overwhelm Russia. I would assume that a KJF strategy requires BOTH UK and US efforts, so what's stopping Germany, with its Africa income, from crushing Russia?
You, sir, are a genius Don's essays got partway there, but I think you've really optimized the play. I love the idea of giving your opponents hard choices!
Hey thank! If you liked this video, you’ll LOVE the video on my channel called “AnA Clinic: the J1 in Classic.
I still run my games of Classic like this in 2023 with one exception: I purchase three transports on J1. Happy gaming.
the problem that most people do not see is the counter attach from the US. the US can bring the battleship, transport (for cannon fodder) 2 fighters and a bomber. that is 2 fours and 2 threes. japan loses there entire navy in one turn.
In my opinion, this represents the battle of Midway, the US counter attack is potentially the end of the Japanese fleet.
Taking the Hawaiian island helps Japan by denying a landing zone for the Eastern US fighter, now it's 3 combat units against probably 5 or more. Taking allied $$ that is distant seems to be more permanent than the back & forth monies associated with the Asian territories, beginning this more permanent damage sooner goes a long way to the economic parity the Axis need when buying time
@@mikedearing6352 You would love the video in my channel titled, "The J1 in Classic". Also, you're the only one who I've seen share this sentiment: that the closer approximation to this opener is the battle of Midway (really in nearly every way except sea zone). 100% agree.
Just three minutes into this video, and I have to ask, before I completely forget, if we can get an overall view of the board at the start, as I see no IC in India, and this is starting to confuse me a bit. I know, you said right at the beginning, this wasn't for the novice player, but for me and probably a great many others, it might be better to make things clearer and easier to follow, just my initial impressions, 3 minutes into this current video, of a rather great series!
EDIT: now at five minutes in, I see you caught the IC thing, but now I notice that, according to Don, the UK transport shuttled guys from the middle east over to india, whereas I had thought that your move was to drop it down to Australia? More later, back to the rest of your video...
Edit: Finished, and impressive! I've played this out this way, and also done other stuff not shown, but as always, you give a clear and concise description and we see some good things on the board at this point.
Late to the channel, but I love your videos. I played AaA weekly with a friend in the 90ties. We found that attacking the US fleet was indeed not a good move for Japan, they need extra income and wasting material without gaining IPC's is pointless. We found first turn placing an idustrial complex in Sinkiang very useful. It costs as much as two transports but it means you can place two tanks every turn on the mainland. Japan has a lot of fighters, you want to move as fast as you can so attacking with tanks and fighters can speed Japan up once they break Russian and US resistance.
No worries about being late. I review my channel once a year at least to make sure everything posted here is still something I believe in. This video was slightly amended in a video later on titled, "Where I changed my mind". Congrats on solving the Pacific riddle. You and your friend were in a minority. To this day, I still get opponents who cannot help themselves and go for it anyway. I do a deep analysis on that exact attack in a later video on this channel titled, "The J1 in Classic". On the IC purchase, I strongly recommend against this for the reason you point out: its practically the cost of two transports. The added benefit of two transports is a more robust IJN navy in the Pacific but it also harnesses the limitless potential of the IC on Japan. "Flip-shucking" units into FIC and then Manchuria on the next turn and back again precludes the need for any IC with the added benefit of putting an incredible amount of pressure on the Allies in Egypt, Trans Jordan and Syria (since the transports off FIC can hit those territories should they so desire). The whole thing is lethally efficient and cannot be "captured" or "bombed" like an IC. If you'd ever like a friendly game, I'm always here - I'm always playing. =) Classic is still the absolute best version in playability and even balance imo.
Thanks for the inivitation. I accept your point about the IC. We never went into strategic bombing anywhere else than on Germany. Bombers are expensive. We had a series of games where either Japan invaded Alsaka by surprise because the Allied player wasn't paying attention, mainly because they moved their Pacific fleet to the Atlantic while the Japanese fleet was fully intact. A sneaky Allied mover would be the US building an IC in Alaska, pressuring Japan, when they did not clear the Russians from the Soviet Far East. It was always fun exploring all kinds of strategies and we never cared about who won. The debriefing after the game was often the most enjoyable part!@@thegoodcaptain1217
there is a way to bring three fighters to the attach i Hawaii.
US focusing on the Pacific, even if it's just for 1 turn is the Axis' dream!
As of this writing, I completely agree. It would be really interesting if a strategy emerged where such a move was beneficial for the allies...
I wholeheartedly agree with the Tokyo Express of transports, but not the leaving of Pearl harbor alone though! I wouldn't take my bomber out as a casualty either, it's just too expensive in this version+ it has great range and can bomb factories as well!!!
While I can see taking the bomber as a casualty, in order to have a hawaiian fleet with 4@4 + 1@3 on the defense against the 2@3 + 2@4 + transport bullet stopper of the american potential counter-attack, it would make much more sense to have simply brought along an empty transport of your own. Yes, this is not something that Japan can do every time, depending on the ground situation in SE Asia, and what the allies have done up to this point, but it should be kept in mind.
Also, if I'm not going to redo PH, then I tend to do one of three things, one of which is shown in this video, and a second is just a bit different, while the third is totally different.
I agree with this one, actually. I've always hated the notion that Japan ought to Pearl Harbor J1 in almost every edition of A&A. It's such a waste of your starting Air Force which is really needed in guaranteeing one-round kills on the mainland (which limits casualties to keep your momentum up).
Keeping momentum as Japan is critical, as you don't have a steady stream of land reinforcements until J2/J3 depending on your build, and you need to KO India ASAP if you want to be helpful to the overall Axis cause.
I agree.
Me too. A few american ships do not outweigh the mainland attack.
But... but... it's historically inaccurate! The US wouldn't have been in the war if not for Pearl Harbor! ... kinda. But yes, I agree with the sentiment that casualties in the Pacific are a waste for both the US and Japanese players.
@@Dedread This game technically starts after Pearl Harbor has happened. It kicks off in Spring, 1942. The closest approximation to the naval opener would be the battle of Midway albeit it's in a different zone...
Builds are correct, Japan takes one infantry from japan and one from wake island and invades Hawaii, They bring one fighter from japan to attack US fleet and bring sub, BB.
Second 2 infantry and 2 fighters against the 2 US infantry, 1 bomber and 4 infantry against the 1 US fighter and 2 US infantry. 2nd transport drops off 2 infantry in Indo during NCM
Assuming 2 hit BB BTW.
@@KaiserWilhelmIV All my videos are in strict adherence to the out-of-box rules (2nd Edition) that came with the Milton Bradley edition of AnA. So there are no two hit battleships. Check out my "Where I Changed My Mind" video though for a sharpened up Japan strategy commentary (I still stand by the tactics discussed in this video as of this writing).
In my opinion, this represents the battle of Midway, the US counter attack is potentially the end of the Japanese fleet.
Taking the Hawaiian island helps Japan by denying a landing zone for the Eastern US fighter, now it's 3 combat units against probably 5 or more. Taking allied $$ that is distant seems to be more permanent than the back & forth monies associated with the Asian territories, beginning this more permanent damage sooner goes a long way to economic parity
If I do the essays version and attack Pearl Harbor do I move the fleet back the next turn or keep it there?
Hey Camden. Its just slightly too long to explain in a post. I edited Don's Essays though. Just download this word document: www.mediafire.com/file/s1fbbddjic865af/Don_Rae_Hindsight_2020.docx/file The answer you're looking for is on page 20 and then starting on page 35.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thank you so much best channel ever
the downfall for not taking the US fleet is that the US fleet goes to the Atlantic.
When should I take out India and how.
Turn 3 if not sooner, sometimes much sooner. This is done with overwhelming force usually without a battle, via Japanese transports ability to drop off a large force in French-Indo. Let me know if you would like to play a game sometime.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks played a game with my play group I was Japan I took Russia from behind then got in a huge stall mate for like four hours then we quit with no clear winner except that we did get economic victory but we don’t play economic victory.
@@camden_raab9875 no economic victory… smh. Did you get a + bid for being axis?
@@thegoodcaptain1217 what is that?
@@camden_raab9875 did you get extra money to spend on forces before the game started as the axis player? Did you get a bid?
US needs to make a decision, Atlantic or pacific, not both .
Atlantic
i agree. but with every move there is an action and reaction. US goes Atlantic but keep an eye on the Pacific.
@@robertsnyder1890 have we played a game yet? I feel like we need to play a game.
next time you come to New Hampshire, i am here for you. 603-224-9280
The wild card in the whole thing is What will Japan do early?
If we are going to play u should not of made this video.
😉 I’m funnin
Your strategy prompts KJF. You must destroy the Hawaii fleet
Hey, thanks for the comment. I have not yet seen a workable KJF either in my group or via play by forums or any of my online games. My invitation for (a) game(s) with you still stands. And I have no problem using the optional rule in the back of the manual that allows for naval builds in occupied sea zones. Good to hear from you!
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Did you and Kaiser ever play? I would like to know the result if he tried a KJF strategy...
@@Dedread still waiting…
Japan cannot match the US ship for ship...1 AC and 2 subs in the first round, and 4 subs every round after that leaves the US laughing...if Japan buys navy each turn to "keep up" perfect, cause they haven't done much against Russia or UK on the mainland then, and along about turn 6-7 there's gonna be a mighty big naval battle occur for the right to occupy Japans harbor...if they don't buy any navy and concentrate on the mainland-more perfect!...US destroys Japans navy easily on the 3rd or 4th turn(or drives it away from their homeland making it useless), starts taking all of Japans islands, AND also reinforces Russia from Alaska to Soviet far East...meanwhile...the UK builds 3 inf a turn in India, and concentrates on putting 4 inf a turn onto Finland for Karelia,(or maybe puts an IC in South Africa too) and Russia builds only inf for Karelia...between turn 3 and 7, the US will begin to overwhelm Japan and once the troops start transporting its just a matter of time...IMO this is the ideal scenario to play a KJF, especially if Germany doesn't attack the UK/Russia fleet
Could you describe how a Kill Japan First (KJF) strategy works, and how the German player tends to do against Russia in the meantime? I would have thought that KJF gives too much time to the German player to take Africa and start to overwhelm Russia. I would assume that a KJF strategy requires BOTH UK and US efforts, so what's stopping Germany, with its Africa income, from crushing Russia?