Mixing Japanese and German units.........

[Cpt. John Miller]

They say that mixing these nations is ok as "there was somewhat more naval cooperation" but it doesn't seem right to have Japanese fighters protecting German Battleships from US/UK aircraft. The issue for me is the lack of a German fighter, even a land based one. I'm sure there will be one in future sets but I don't like playing this combo and it seems I will just have to do so until the next set. Any thoughts on this? I'm not a stickler for historical accuracy but this doesn't feel right somehow.

[Joisey]

That's actually damning with faint praise, as the Whermacht and the Japanese Imperial Army had virtually not contact. It's not hard to score above zero.

Besides a sub or two making the trip to Japan, I'm hard put to think of much naval cooperation. The Germans shared the design for the Me 262 with the Japanese, but Japan only built a few prototypes before the war ended.

Japan clearly never learned any lessons in submarine warfare from the Kriegsmarine, their sub tactics being generally ineffective.

Make No Mistake: Having Zeros flying CAP for the Kriegsmarine is about as fictional as fiction gets.

[Cpt. John Miller]

Make No Mistake: Having Zeros flying CAP for the Kriegsmarine is about as fictional as fiction gets.

Wizards doesn't think so unfortunately. I understand the lack of German carriers, but the lack of a German fighter is almost inexcusable.
The other problem is that I didn't get a single Japanese rare in my first case.
And my Royal Navy is pretty limited as well. That means I can't play the game the way it was designed: US v. Japan or UK v. Germany because I am short on the historical matchups. I bought a case, so this must be a big problem for those who only got a few boosters.

[Muenchausen]

Wizards doesn't think so unfortunately. I understand the lack of German carriers, but the lack of a German fighter is almost inexcusable.
The other problem is that I didn't get a single Japanese rare in my first case.
And my Royal Navy is pretty limited as well. That means I can't play the game the way it was designed: US v. Japan or UK v. Germany because I am short on the historical matchups. I bought a case, so this must be a big problem for those who only got a few boosters.

As far as distribution goes, I had the exact opposite experience. Out of three cases I'm missing four US and two UK rares. I have IJN and Kriegsmarine ships out the ying yang.

[Joisey]

I think the exclusion of a German fighter is entirely understandable. Besides the Channel Dash, I don't think there is a single naval engagement where the Kriegsmarine had the luxury of German fighter cover.

The German navy was forced to fight without air cover. They had no carriers, so any fight in the Atlantic not within sight of land they made due without. That's just the way it was.

[DeathsHead420]

Yeah your right but until a new set comes out with the Graf Zepplin, I don't think we will see any Fw190's or Bf 109's for the axis until then I'll take zero's for cover.

[horacus]

Yeah your right but until a new set comes out with the Graf Zepplin, I don't think we will see any Fw190's or Bf 109's for the axis until then I'll take zero's for cover.

Well, that's the solution until the time came...

[Cpt. John Miller]

The German navy was forced to fight without air cover. They had no carriers, so any fight in the Atlantic not within sight of land they made due without. That's just the way it was.

Well that's true. There were no zeros defending these same ships. That's just the way it was as well. Blending of Germany and Japan has been condoned by WotC, and people WILL play that way. I for one, don't like that aspect of the game. If land based Stukas can join the fight then so can a fighter plane IMO.

[Joisey]

I'm simply not going to play people who want to have Japanese Zeros protecting German battleships. If you can't win playing as a True German Warrior, then don't play them at all, says I.;) Besides, the Advanced Rules say that the Japanese fleets don't fight with any allies.

I, for one, believe that a pure German build is capable of winning without resorting to the ahistorical use of Japanese fighters, based on the tactics I have already proposed. The Karl Galster's Close Escort ability is, I'm convinced, there specifically to balance out the German's lack of a fighter by giving them superior AA density. If the Germans have that, AND Japanese fighters too, that's probably a game imbalancing advantage.

[Reemule]

I'm taking the easy way out for my Italians. I'm going to repaint 3-4 Zero's as MC202s

[Joisey]

That's not a bad idea, but the MC202's probably deserve better stats than the Zero.

[Jesse_James]

When mixing two nations that do not really belong I call it culture shock

I "borrowed" the term from Anachronism, but twisted it a bit.

In tournaments you can only use nations that fought along side (Itlay, Germany)

But if the tournament is a culture shock tournament then you can mix Japan and Germany/ Russia and USA etc.

but that is my tournament mind. I also have a historic scenario mind, but that is not as big.

[Remember-OWS-]

I think the exclusion of a German fighter is entirely understandable. Besides the Channel Dash, I don't think there is a single naval engagement where the Kriegsmarine had the luxury of German fighter cover.

The German navy was forced to fight without air cover. They had no carriers, so any fight in the Atlantic not within sight of land they made due without. That's just the way it was.


Crete sector was Air controled by the Luftwaffe, but a No brainer general thought the the night cover would grant the 10 000 man to cross from Greece to Crete.
Many went down and other had to turn back.

We could have got some 109 escorting the freighters.

[DeathsHead420]

Yes re paint them. You are probably right about zero's and Germany, but until I get more German and Italian stuff the zero's stay.

[Rokossovsky]

The Japanese did not get along all that well with the Germans historically.

The Akikaze Massacre was the Japanese Navy's 1943 murder of German priests and nuns and their Chinese servants at sea on that ship. (Well, the nuns were probably raped first, but ....)

Indeed, during the Japanese Army's Rape of Nanking in 1937, card-carrying German Nazis risked their lives giving Chinese women and children sanctuary from the marauding Japanese soldiers.

Akikaze was an old ship: it was not part of the later Kagero class, which was Yukikaze's class.

Throughout the war, the Germans were (naively) trying to coordinate with the Japanese -- sending them technology, etc. -- hoping the Japanese would open a second front against the Russians in Siberia -- but the Japanese militarists looked at the Germans as just a different flavor of hated Europeans. If the Axis powers had won World War 2, it is grim to think what would have happened next.

[XAos]

I, for one, believe that a pure German build is capable of winning without resorting to the ahistorical use of Japanese fighters, based on the tactics I have already proposed. The Karl Galster's Close Escort ability is, I'm convinced, there specifically to balance out the German's lack of a fighter by giving them superior AA density.
Karl Galster only has AA-5,:rolleyes: you might want to try playing German yourself before being so sure of that.???
If the Germans have that, AND Japanese fighters too, that's probably a game imbalancing advantage.
The USN get USS-Atlanta which is easily a better AA option than Karl Galster. Combining 2xKarl Galster(s) with Zekes can't match a single Atlanta with Wildcats and costs more points. So is USS-Atlanta automatically a game imbalencing option ?

[TheFoeHammer]

The USN get USS-Atlanta which is easily a better AA option than Karl Galster. Combining 2xKarl Galster(s) with Zekes can't match a single Atlanta with Wildcats and costs more points. So is USS-Atlanta automatically a game imbalencing option ?

The Karl Gaster also has an anti-sub benefit which Atlanta does not, and Atlanta does not get to shoot at the same guy twice if she misses. But Atlanta is a way cheaper anti-air option if you have someone else doing the anti-sub for you.

[ChonChuuk]

Yes, but with the Karl Galster you can have 3 ships in a sector.

I believe that is what Joisey is referring to.

[Thunderjp]

Problem: Number of German units with 7+ AA dice: 2 (Bismarck and Sharnhorst).

[Thunderjp]

Units with 7+AA dice sorted by AA rating/Point Cost. If your fleet is lacking Japanese or US units, you are going to have a hard time destroying any bombers.
name/country/type/cost
A6M2 "Zeke" JP Fighter 6
F4F Wildcat US Fighter 7
USS Atlanta (CL 51) US Cruiser 12* Attacks 2 Planes/Turn
USS Princeton (CVL 23) US Carrier 16
USS Baltimore (CA 68) US Cruiser 18
Shokaku JP Carrier 20
USS Enterprise (CV 6) US Carrier 25
HMS Ark Royal UK Carrier 22
Tone JP Cruiser 23
Akagi JP Carrier 27
Scharnhorst GE Battleship 38
Kongo JP Battleship 35
USS Tennessee (BB 43) US Battleship 43
Bismarck GE Battleship 53
HMS Hood UK Battleship 48
USS Washington (BB 56) US Battleship 56
Vittorio Veneto IT Battleship 49
USS Iowa (BB 61) US Battleship 68
Richelieu FR Battleship 54
HMS Rodney UK Battleship 58
Yamato JP Battleship 70

[Thunderjp]

For those interested, here is the list of ships with a 6 AA value:

Name Country Unit Type Point Cost
Sea Hurricane Mk. 1B UK Fighter 5
USS Fletcher (DD 445) US Destroyer 7
Koln GE Cruiser 11
Emanuele Filberto Duca d'Aosta IT Cruiser 12
USS Boise (CL 47) US Cruiser 13
HMS Ajax UK Cruiser 13
USS Salt Lake City (CA 25) US Cruiser 14
Gloire FR Cruiser 14
HMAS Sydney AU Cruiser 14
Bolzano IT Cruiser 18
Admiral Graf Spee GE Cruiser 21
Myoko JP Cruiser 24


Germans should stack a Koln with a Karl Galster and a BB for optimal anti-air, but that makes the Koln unable to effectively utilize its SA.

[Joisey]

Karl Galster only has AA-5,:rolleyes: you might want to try playing German yourself before being so sure of that.???

The USN get USS-Atlanta which is easily a better AA option than Karl Galster. Combining 2xKarl Galster(s) with Zekes can't match a single Atlanta with Wildcats and costs more points. So is USS-Atlanta automatically a game imbalencing option ?

Winning with the U.S. is easy. They have the most ships and they are all the best in their class. You have to really work at it to lose with the Americans.

As far as the Karl Galster goes, yes, it would be nice if the AA rating were higher, but it still is the only ship that can overstack in a sector and it would be foolish for a German player not to do it. It still provides your BB's with ASW. It lets the Germans be the only fleet that can put 2 BB's in the same sector and still have an intrinsic ASW defense. Any other fleet that wants ASW in the same sector as it's BB's has to pull out 1 heavy ship and stick in a DD.

[DeathsHead420]

I don't Think so. I've played a few games and I would have to say that the Axis Are not that hard to win with. Yes I have more Allies then Axis so I have to mix it up for any thing over 100pts. I have no Japanese. BB's so I have to use my Bismark and Scharhorst to bolster up my axis fleets. I don't want to do this but have no choice. I would gladly have two kongo's instead but I just pretend that my Japanese units have linked with germany's off the coast of Argintina, and there will be no scuttling of German ships in fear of a larger force lying and waiting. Fight to the death.
Any way I have won more times with axis then I have lost. The Japanese navy is awesome if you are fortunate enough to get the pieces needed, you should't lose often. Long lance torps is the equalizer.

The 200pt fleet I want would consist of
2x kongo's
2x tone
1x myoko
1x akagi
2x Yukikazi
And as many support aircraft I can get my hands on.
A couple of I-19's and Yamamoto for a 300 pt fleet. I'll name my Yamamoto the Mushi.
I don't have all of these pieces but I want them.:D

[Joisey]

I don't Think so. I've played a few games and I would have to say that the Axis Are not that hard to win with. Yes I have more Allies then Axis so I have to mix it up for any thing over 100pts. I have no Japanese. BB's so I have to use my Bismark and Scharhorst to bolster up my axis fleets. I don't want to do this but have no choice. I would gladly have two kongo's instead but I just pretend that my Japanese units have linked with germany's off the coast of Argintina, and there will be no scuttling of German ships in fear of a larger force lying and waiting. Fight to the death.
Any way I have won more times with axis then I have lost. The Japanese navy is awesome if you are fortunate enough to get the pieces needed, you should't lose often. Long lance torps is the equalizer.

The 200pt fleet I want would consist of
2x kongo's
2x tone
1x myoko
1x akagi
2x Yukikazi
And as many support aircraft I can get my hands on.
A couple of I-19's and Yamamoto for a 300 pt fleet. I'll name my Yamamoto the Mushi.
I don't have all of these pieces but I want them.:D

The Cardinal Principle of the Tactica Nipponica is to always talk your opponent into a higher point game. ;) Seriously, the Japanese fleet is greater than the sum of its parts, but it's only when you have alot of points to spend that you get to use the Japanese fleet at it's best.

[kaz]

dose it realy mater its a what if game use what u want with in reson ie allies v axis no mix machin if u want 2 do games that are historikal do them and look at an ordre ov battel if u want do a sinario or a what if game like the bismark and the terpits in the same fleet point is its a game have fun

[captkurt]

Could not one assume that a "Zeke" in the German Navy is simply a German Fighter? We do this with AAM all the time, for units that do not existing in the game, but did in the war.

[Yankee]

I was a huge fan of a Nomura comic that came out a few years ago called "Luftwaffe 1946." It was a part of the "Families of Altered Wars" I think. In that "alternate reality" German and Japanese ships and planes cooperated to a larger extent. Perhaps if one wanted a "pure fantasy" scenario now and then, that would be an interesting diversion. Course I agree that I prefer the "historical" scenarios. That's one reason it would be nice to see Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales for my "Denmark Strait" scenario. :D

[mikoyan]

Winning with the U.S. is easy. They have the most ships and they are all the best in their class. You have to really work at it to lose with the Americans.

Geeze, you'd think the US lost the war or something the way some of the folks carry on around here.

Germany did not have fighters for many of their Naval engagements. It's pretty clear.

[gunhawk]

The Cardinal Principle of the Tactica Nipponica is to always talk your opponent into a higher point game. ;) Seriously, the Japanese fleet is greater than the sum of its parts, but it's only when you have alot of points to spend that you get to use the Japanese fleet at it's best.

Absolutely. Akagi allows for "expert" torpedoes, which are good even *without* "expert", the subs are good with good range and "finish him off", and the "Yamato" is the best battleship in the game. In a game of 300-400 points, where carriers become a viable strategy, the Japanese become *very* competitive. The American Devastators are weak compared to Kates (yes I know that this is historically correct) In fact, IMO, in a game of that size, the only real advantage for the US are the Atlanta class cruisers. If you jump to a *much* larger game, say 600 points or better, the US takes the lead again as they are allowed four Iowa and four Washington class BBs, and in a large enough game to allow three ships to a square, two Atlanta's stacked with a BB will create an impassable AA screen with no need for CAP at all. Conversely, only two Yamato's are allowed, the Japanese have no equivalent to the Atlanta class AA cruisers, and the "Kongo" is just not a competitive BB.

[RollingThunder]

I was a huge fan of a Nomura comic that came out a few years ago called "Luftwaffe 1946." It was a part of the "Families of Altered Wars" I think. In that "alternate reality" German and Japanese ships and planes cooperated to a larger extent. Perhaps if one wanted a "pure fantasy" scenario now and then, that would be an interesting diversion. Course I agree that I prefer the "historical" scenarios. That's one reason it would be nice to see Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales for my "Denmark Strait" scenario. :D

I always liked the idea of a 1946 set for AAM.
But then...I also campaign for a pure Air AAM game as well. I'm chasing my own tail.

[Bigblue2]

There are two ways to play WAS. The first is historically, keeping the forces historical. This gives the ally force a big edge as they won the war and they also cooperated. The Americans provided the British with Catalinas, wildcats, and lots of other aircraft not yet represented, lots of old destroyers. They also worked together closely for a mutual goal, winning the war. The axis powers, being what they were could not really get along, and did not cooperate much at all.

The other way to play WAS, is as a truely what if game, not just re-creating real match-ups or what could have really been match-ups. What if the axis powers had really coordinated their efforts and even worked closely together. What could have been the possibilities?

There is room for both types of games. In a sanctioned tournament, you may see a lot of Japanese/German crossover forces. You can't choose who you will play in a tournament, unless you just want to conceed a victory to your opponent just to make some kind of statement. :eek:

[gunhawk]

There are two ways to play WAS. The first is historically, keeping the forces historical. This gives the ally force a big edge as they won the war and they also cooperated. The Americans provided the British with Catalinas, wildcats, and lots of other aircraft not yet represented, lots of old destroyers. They also worked together closely for a mutual goal, winning the war. The axis powers, being what they were could not really get along, and did not cooperate much at all.

The other way to play WAS, is as a truely what if game, not just re-creating real match-ups or what could have really been match-ups. What if the axis powers had really coordinated their efforts and even worked closely together. What could have been the possibilities?

There is room for both types of games. In a sanctioned tournament, you may see a lot of Japanese/German crossover forces. You can't choose who you will play in a tournament, unless you just want to conceed a victory to your opponent just to make some kind of statement. :eek:

The Italians and Germans cooperated in North Africa and Italy. The Japanese and Germans *couldn't* work together for a number of reasons. Mostly that both of these Axis powers during 1943 and later were busy trying to save themselves from being overrun in their respective areas of the planet. Mutual military support was illogical because of their proximity and their manufacturing was geared for two different kinds of fighting. Their military traditions and manner of fighting were entirely different as well.

[Bigblue2]

The Italians and Germans cooperated in North Africa and Italy. The Japanese and Germans *couldn't* work together for a number of reasons. Mostly that both of these Axis powers during 1943 and later were busy trying to save themselves from being overrun in their respective areas of the planet. Mutual military support was illogical because of their proximity and their manufacturing was geared for two different kinds of fighting. Their military traditions and manner of fighting were entirely different as well.

I know the basic history, the Germans went to Africa to bail out the incompetent Italian forces. The Germans didn't trust or respect the Italians to even defend their own country after the Germans lost Africa by not being able to resupply their forces, thanks in large part to the breaking of the enigma code that allowed the British to intercept Rommels supplies.

The mindset of Hitler and the Japanese military leaders prevented them from cooperating. What I was trying to say, in a what if type thing was the following. What if Germany and Japan got together and could see things eye to eye. What if Germany did not invade Russia (arguably their biggest blunder) but instead completed their naval building program and then launched their European invasion. What if the attack was coordinated with Japans attack on Pearl Harbor. Things could have been much different. America did not want to go to war. They were not really opposing Japans grab for resources and England and France were not trying to free Poland. There was time to build for the eventual second stage of the axis expansion. Continuing the what if thing, what if the axis powers shared their technologies. They didn't, and the rest of the world ganged up on them and America used their industrial might to crush the axis powers. Maybe this is why the units power seems to be slanted in favor of the Americans. Isn't an Iowa at 68 points better than a Yamato at 70 points?

[gunhawk]

The mindset of Hitler and the Japanese military leaders prevented them from cooperating. What I was trying to say, in a what if type thing was the following. What if Germany and Japan got together and could see things eye to eye. What if Germany did not invade Russia (arguably their biggest blunder) but instead completed their naval building program and then launched their European invasion. What if the attack was coordinated with Japans attack on Pearl Harbor. Things could have been much different. America did not want to go to war. They were not really opposing Japans grab for resources and England and France were not trying to free Poland. There was time to build for the eventual second stage of the axis expansion. Continuing the what if thing, what if the axis powers shared their technologies. They didn't, and the rest of the world ganged up on them and America used their industrial might to crush the axis powers. Maybe this is why the units power seems to be slanted in favor of the Americans. Isn't an Iowa at 68 points better than a Yamato at 70 points?

I'm not following you. If the beginning of the German Expansion in Europe began at the same time as the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. would have been in the war from the very beginning and that would have been *bad* for the Axis.

The Axis sharing each other's technology wouldn't have helped them very much. The Japanese didn't need a King Tiger to defend Guadalcanal and the Germans were doing fine with their naval technology, they just couldn't build *everything*, and they felt that tanks, rockets and airplanes were more important to their plans.

Of course everything would have been different if the Germans didn't invade Russia, but that's what the Nazis were all about, so any "what if" situation that didn't include Germany's expansion policy to rule Europe wouldn't make any sense.

Is the Iowa "better" than the Yamato? I like the Iowa better too, but not because of it's superior "extended range" as the Yamato will simply move in closer and there's a good chance that the Iowa will be damaged before the two BBs are in range and lose that special effect anyway. I favor the Iowa for it's superior AA. When games go up over 300 points you are almost *sure* to see enemy aircraft and an American BB stacked with an Atlanta is a fortress against AA. Those extra points to the Armor and Vital Armor of the Yamato are nothing to sneeze at though, as an enemy BB will be *averaging* hits somewhere around 8 to 12 points and that's close enough to the Vital Armor of any BB to make any extra armor point valuable.