Archive for Axis & Allies ForuMINI Specialised in the World War II Axis & Allies Miniatures and War At Sea Games
 


       Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> Fleet Builds
The_lucky_Y

odd IJN 100 point fleet(including set III unit)

Shokaku 20 Points
Soryu 20 points
4x Judy 48 points
2x Zeke 12 points
Duck Crusader

Taking an awful chance there bro, if you can't down his surface fleet fast enough you've got nothing to contest OBs or tie up surface ships.
The_lucky_Y

In a objective grabbing game this fleet may not be the best choice.
Inspiring Lieutenant

Re: odd IJN 100 point fleet(including set III unit)

The_lucky_Y wrote:
Shokaku 20 Points
Soryu 20 points
4x Judy 48 points
2x Zeke 12 points


It may stand a chance against cruisers and destroyers, but this fleet has no ASW, and even an Expert 2 Judy only has a 3.27% chance of hitting an armor 9 battleship.

I think that torpedo planes are the way to go with the Japanese. I was thinking of something like this:

Kongo               35 points
Soryu                20 points
B6N2 "Jill" x 2    28 points
A6M5 "Zeke"       7 points
H8KI "Emily"      10 points

The Kongo provides an initiative point bonus and faces down anything cruiser sized or smaller, while the Jills and Emily provide ASW or 4 torpedos rolls a turn from range 1 against an opposing BB. What do you guys think?
acs0424

Only in a carrier scenario battle will this fleet do anything. Your enemy brings 1 sub and it's all over.
Exchange some stuff to get kates/jills
NuclearLunchbox

Quote:
...even an Expert 2 Judy only has a 3.27% chance of hitting an armor 9 battleship...


IL,

Um... not so sure these maths be correct.

11 die on 9 armor have a 33.1% chance of hitting.

To compare, 3 torps have a 41.1% chance of one hit.  A little better, but takes a unit that costs 2 points more.

Cheers...
Duck Crusader

Re: odd IJN 100 point fleet(including set III unit)

Inspiring Lieutenant wrote:
The_lucky_Y wrote:
Shokaku 20 Points
Soryu 20 points
4x Judy 48 points
2x Zeke 12 points


It may stand a chance against cruisers and destroyers, but this fleet has no ASW, and even an Expert 2 Judy only has a 3.27% chance of hitting an armor 9 battleship.

I think that torpedo planes are the way to go with the Japanese. I was thinking of something like this:

Kongo               35 points
Soryu                20 points
B6N2 "Jill" x 2    28 points
A6M5 "Zeke"       7 points
H8KI "Emily"      10 points

The Kongo provides an initiative point bonus and faces down anything cruiser sized or smaller, while the Jills and Emily provide ASW or 4 torpedos rolls a turn from range 1 against an opposing BB. What do you guys think?


Hmm, good but would go with the old Zeke for escort.
Inspiring Lieutenant

NuclearLunchbox wrote:
Quote:
...even an Expert 2 Judy only has a 3.27% chance of hitting an armor 9 battleship...


IL,

Um... not so sure these maths be correct.

11 die on 9 armor have a 33.1% chance of hitting.

To compare, 3 torps have a 41.1% chance of one hit.  A little better, but takes a unit that costs 2 points more.

Cheers...


Hmm... sorry, my math was wrong. Is the WAS calculator at the top of the page accurate? I'm almost certain that I entered it correctly before, but I just entered it again (WAS: Chances of 9 success with 11 dice) and it says 23.48%.

Not as good as 33.1%, but much better than 3.27%.

(FYI: The calculator gave me 42.199% on the torp math).

So, I stand corrected. The fleet is remotely feasable against battleships (Only gets one Expert 2 bomber), but it still has no ASW.
Inspiring Lieutenant

Re: odd IJN 100 point fleet(including set III unit)

Duck Crusader wrote:
Inspiring Lieutenant wrote:
The_lucky_Y wrote:
Shokaku 20 Points
Soryu 20 points
4x Judy 48 points
2x Zeke 12 points


It may stand a chance against cruisers and destroyers, but this fleet has no ASW, and even an Expert 2 Judy only has a 3.27% chance of hitting an armor 9 battleship.

I think that torpedo planes are the way to go with the Japanese. I was thinking of something like this:

Kongo               35 points
Soryu                20 points
B6N2 "Jill" x 2    28 points
A6M5 "Zeke"       7 points
H8KI "Emily"      10 points

The Kongo provides an initiative point bonus and faces down anything cruiser sized or smaller, while the Jills and Emily provide ASW or 4 torpedos rolls a turn from range 1 against an opposing BB. What do you guys think?


Hmm, good but would go with the old Zeke for escort.


Yeah, that occurred to me too. Escort could be an important ability in this fleet, but I hate leaving a point unused, and IMHO, "Great Agility" makes the new Zeke better suited for air defense of your own ships (It is more likely to survive from turn to turn and keep that Expert 2 Dogfighter ability going for you).

Also, with the ability to attack from range one, outplacing your opponent's fighters should be easier, thus making escort less necessary. Simply place your Zeke and Emily first, because they can handle themselves adequately alone against fighters. Then, even if you've lost initiative, your opponent has placed two of his own aircraft before you place your first Jill. (Just hope he doesn't have USS Laffey w/ Radar Picket).

At least, those were my thoughts. Comments? (Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread with my own build).
Duck Crusader

Yer, that kinda makes sense, but not being a fan of carrier builds at 100 pts it makes more sense to me to ensure the carrier strike gets through. In fact, I'd probably switch out the  Kongo for a Shoho, an 'old' Zeke, and a pair of Akitsukis. That way you've got 2 AA shots over your carriers, 2 expert dogfighters, an interceptor defender over your carriers, 2DDs for sub defense/OB grabbers with 4 AA shots, and still use the 'old' Zeke to escort yer torp strikes. If yer gonna go Air there's no sense doing it half-way at 100 points. So:

Shoho 9
Soryu 20
Akitsuki x2 20
Jill x2 28
A6M5 Zeke 7
A6M2 Zeke 6
Emily 10
Total: 100 exactly.
Inspiring Lieutenant

Duck Crusader wrote:
Yer, that kinda makes sense, but not being a fan of carrier builds at 100 pts it makes more sense to me to ensure the carrier strike gets through. In fact, I'd probably switch out the  Kongo for a Shoho, an 'old' Zeke, and a pair of Akitsukis. That way you've got 2 AA shots over your carriers, 2 expert dogfighters, an interceptor defender over your carriers, 2DDs for sub defense/OB grabbers with 4 AA shots, and still use the 'old' Zeke to escort yer torp strikes. If yer gonna go Air there's no sense doing it half-way at 100 points. So:

Shoho 9
Soryu 20
Akitsuki x2 20
Jill x2 28
A6M5 Zeke 7
A6M2 Zeke 6
Emily 10
Total: 100 exactly.


Yeah, not very many people are fans of carrier builds at 100 points, so I think a lot of factors go unconsidered.

Prior to the introduction of the Jill, I'd  have agreed that a carrier build needs to be able to overwhelm enemy AA in the same sector (w/ 4 aircraft), and at 100 points, that just didn't leave room for much else. However, I see potential for a work around with the Jill's range 1 SA combined with Emily's Shadowing SA.

Your build is clearly better at ASW, and it has a second pair of ships for grabbing objectives (though, IMO it is really only imperative to grab one objective in a 100 point game), but it doesn't offer any additional air power (Still only two "Jills", so it's not going to sink BB's any faster, though, the escort argument has some merit - I just think less so if you're engaging from range 1) or surface gunnery (Okay, two Akitsuki's) to stop/slow enemy BB's and crusiers from reaching your carriers, which is usually the fate of 100 point carrier fleets.

My thinking was, for optimal AA against an air build, the Kongo and Soryu could stay in the same sector and have the Zeke fly high cover. Also, against an opposing carrier build, the Kongo, which would be steaming directly for the enemy CV, would likely be the primary target for enemy bombers, not the Soryu.

I think the worst possible matchup for either of our builds would be a fleet with two armor 8 BB's with Torpedo Defense like Arizona and Tennessee. Either one of those could defeat the Kongo by itself, and the Jills just wouldn't score enough hits in time. Alas, my search for a feasable 100 point carrier build continues... I think I just enjoy trying  Confused
Duck Crusader

No harm in that, and I'd certainly agree about the heavy BB factor. In fact I have a nightmare build for it:

Dunkerrque x2 72
Wildcat x4 28
Total: 100 exactly again

Neither of us has subs so no worries there, though you could cut aircover to 1 per turn and drop one in, two bitty BBs with torp defense and excellent spotting, two fighters to oppose yer air each turn. I figure it's paste either of our builds a solid 85% of the time. BBs rule the 100 pt game, that's just how it is.
acs0424

Hm a good trick with 2 BB's.

How to create a wall of flak:

Put your Dunkerques in the same square. and then put your 4 fighters in that square if an all outair attack is launched. 6 AA attacks, it is a wall of AA.
Or if not required bring out 2 wildcats per turn.
Also both Dunkerques together means the ranges are the same.
The_lucky_Y

there is always a bigger fish

and on the other hand I prefer usually 2oo point builds and bigger but even in 2oo point builds carrier builds are not very common.


but the Soryu/Shokaku pair can be competive against the Yorcktown/Enterprise Pair with their matching SA´s for the
aircrafts.
acs0424

I always take at least 1 fleet carrier if I am playing 200 points UNLESS i am using a sub swarm.
ARK

Very few of my 200 point fleets include any carrier support. The exception is my German fleet. I use a Graf Zep in 90% of my German builds, but I use her as a cruiser that just happens to carry aircraft.
Inspiring Lieutenant

Inspiring Lieutenant wrote:
NuclearLunchbox wrote:
Quote:
...even an Expert 2 Judy only has a 3.27% chance of hitting an armor 9 battleship...


IL,

Um... not so sure these maths be correct.

11 die on 9 armor have a 33.1% chance of hitting.

To compare, 3 torps have a 41.1% chance of one hit.  A little better, but takes a unit that costs 2 points more.

Cheers...


Hmm... sorry, my math was wrong. Is the WAS calculator at the top of the page accurate? I'm almost certain that I entered it correctly before, but I just entered it again (WAS: Chances of 9 success with 11 dice) and it says 23.48%.

Not as good as 33.1%, but much better than 3.27%.

(FYI: The calculator gave me 42.199% on the torp math).

So, I stand corrected. The fleet is remotely feasable against battleships (Only gets one Expert 2 bomber), but it still has no ASW.


I just figured out that I used the AAM button rather than the WAS button the first time.

AAM: 9 successes with 11 dice = 3.27%
WAS: 9 successes with 11 dice = 23.48%

I haven't played land AAM in years (Advanced rules, enhanced rules, re-scaling, recosting, platoon cards, errata up the wahzoo: I don't even know how to play anymore), but I don't remember what is different about the die system.
Duck Crusader

I usually leave 'em out until it hits 300 myself.
NuclearLunchbox

Quote:
Is the WAS calculator at the top of the page accurate?


The calculator is FUBAR'd.  Always use your own maths.  I posted a spreadsheet a while back in general discussion that has it all done for you.

Cheers...
NuclearLunchbox

Quote:
the worst possible matchup for either of our builds would be a fleet with two armor 8 BB's with Torpedo Defense like Arizona and Tennessee


Bringing two BBs in a 100 point match is WAAAAAAAAY too risky.  It would get eaten with a build with as few as 2 subs.

I did get demolished with a 2 BB build at 150 points once, though.  I brought Yamashiro & Haruna with Shokaku and a Judy/Kate/Zeke.  I think I had a sub in there and maybe something else.  He brought Iowa/Warspite/Fencer/Avenger/Fletcher.  It was over almost at the same time it began.  I haven't played IJN since...

Cheers...
Inspiring Lieutenant

NuclearLunchbox wrote:
Bringing two BBs in a 100 point match is WAAAAAAAAY too risky.  It would get eaten with a build with as few as 2 subs.


Yeah, it would be almost as risky as bringing a carrier fleet to a 100 point game.  Very Happy

You're absolutely right about the above Dunkerque fleet. However, I was thinking of something like this:

USS Tennessee x 2    86
USS Fletcher x 2        14

or

USS Tennessee x 2    86
HMAS Arunta              7
F4F Wildcat                 7

Weak against a sub fleet, yes; but not exactly an auto loss if they only have two. With torpedo defense it would take a lot of hits to sink both BB's. I think I would be more afraid of getting blasted by a Yamato or Musashi.

Oh, and thanks for the advisement on the calculator.
The_lucky_Y

Tennessee is a member of a 2 ship class so you must add the california if you want to have the second tennesee class BB.


just gambling around an triple repulse fleet....
Inspiring Lieutenant

The_lucky_Y wrote:
Tennessee is a member of a 2 ship class so you must add the california if you want to have the second tennesee class BB.


just gambling around an triple repulse fleet....


Hmm... I thought you could substitute a duplicate ship as long as you didn't go past the class limit. Demanding the exact ship seems hard on those with small collections.

Anyway, with no initiative bonus and two ships with Slow 2, either of those fleets would really struggle with positioning.
The_lucky_Y

if we know the Nagato cost and stats we can build a well rounded one BB + support fleet   hope the Nagato comes with flag bonus, armor 9 and no negative SA and cost in the middle fifties


2x Yamashiro and two of the new zekes can be effective against some builds
swarbs

Inspiring Lieutenant wrote:
The_lucky_Y wrote:
Tennessee is a member of a 2 ship class so you must add the california if you want to have the second tennesee class BB.


just gambling around an triple repulse fleet....


Hmm... I thought you could substitute a duplicate ship as long as you didn't go past the class limit. Demanding the exact ship seems hard on those with small collections.

Anyway, with no initiative bonus and two ships with Slow 2, either of those fleets would really struggle with positioning.
Yeah, I think the 'official' clarification on playing with class size limits was up to the number of the class with any unit of that class.  So two TN's or CA's would be just as legal as one of each, though I know plenty of people feel differently, it sort of makes more logical sense the other way actually.  Like you said, however, I think the rule was drafted so that people who started in on the second set wouldn't be penalized for not having set I's units.
Duck Crusader

NuclearLunchbox wrote:
Quote:
the worst possible matchup for either of our builds would be a fleet with two armor 8 BB's with Torpedo Defense like Arizona and Tennessee


Bringing two BBs in a 100 point match is WAAAAAAAAY too risky.  It would get eaten with a build with as few as 2 subs.

I did get demolished with a 2 BB build at 150 points once, though.  I brought Yamashiro & Haruna with Shokaku and a Judy/Kate/Zeke.  I think I had a sub in there and maybe something else.  He brought Iowa/Warspite/Fencer/Avenger/Fletcher.  It was over almost at the same time it began.  I haven't played IJN since...

Cheers...


Yup, but that was tailor-made fer facing off against a carrier only fleet. I noted you could always drop two wildcats for a sub, but you could just as easily do a pair of destroyers. (IRL, not knowing my opponent's fleet, that's probably just what I'd do).
       Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> Fleet Builds
Page 1 of 1