September 19, 2017, 11:25:26 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Help support TripleA software development. Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Pages: 1
  Print  
Author Topic: troubles playing japan  (Read 30911 times)
Bluestone9
A&A.org New Conscript

Posts: 2


View Profile
« on: February 24, 2013, 11:11:27 am »
0

J1 purchase is trans and inf; do a heavy pearl and china despite what UK does; kill dd in kwantung after it hits my trans; seems like everyone likes the "east indies" drive with US...question: later J2 and J3 purchases if US is building heavy on WCoast?  Another CV and planes?  Subs?  Bombers?
Logged
BJCard
A&A.org Fighter
*****
Posts: 1453



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2013, 11:22:17 am »
0

If the Allies are doing a KJF (which they are if the US builds heavy in WUS), then as Japan you need to hole up and pray Germany can beat Russia (which they should be able to do if the USA is not fighting in Europe).  Japan should be aggressive on her first turn to kill as many allied units as possible.  You have two options from here:

Build factories in Asia to produce land units to fight for India and siberia.

Build transports/land units and move them where needed to maintain pressure in Asia. 

If the USA is building a lot in pacific, build fodder units.  Subs, DDs.  Goad him into attacking your fleet- defenders (with aircraft carriers/planes) are better.
Logged
urmomsmom7
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
**
Posts: 60


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2014, 09:25:38 pm »
0

Sorry I am late.
In the event the United States is building heavy in the Pacific then I suggest that you make sure they don't link up with the UK boats in the Pacific because that is always trouble for Japan when the two get together in my experience.
I suggest building a lot of subs and trying to fight on the defensive side if possible. In the event you make an attack you will have plenty of cannon fodder to absorb hits for your carriers/planes.
The back draw is that you will have to play on the defensive on the mainland as you will not be able to reinforce so effectively. I also don't suggest building an industry in Asia in the event the United States player is going full force to get Japan. Reinforce more cheaply with infantry from Japan so you can save money for subs to stand up to the United States navy.
Logged
MarineIguana
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
**
Posts: 88


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 01:25:01 pm »
0

First of all, I want to say that USA committing any purchases to the pacific is a mistake. For the same amount of resources, the USA can always pressure Germany more than Japan. This is from my experience playing hundreds of revised games, many at a high level.

That said, assuming the US commits to the Pacific...

1. Japan should always sink the US fleet at pearl harbor. If this is done, Japan generally starts with a 1 battleship, 2 carrier, 3 fighter advantage compared to the USA that will take 5+ turns of buildup for the US to overcome.
2. The US can't make significant advances unless the Japan fleet is destroyed. The best way to stall the USA is to place your fleet in the sea zone off the phillipines or china and deadzone all sea zone within 2 spaces of Japan's fleet. Have the carriers filled with fighters AND try to have an equal number of fighters in a land territory that can reach all the sz within 2 spaces of Japan's fleet. For example, 2 carriers can support 8 fighters attacking a sea zone.
3. Japan can continue pushing land units into asia, even with all US purchases going to the pacific. My typical purchases are like 6 inf and 2 fighters. With the Japan fleet off of China

Purchases:
1. R1 best purchase is 3 transports and 2 inf. This maximizes Japan's land deployment into Asia and the transports serve a double purpose of strengthening your navy.
2. R2+ The only purchases you should consider for naval battles are fighters, subs, and carriers. Fighters are significantly better than subs mainly because fighters have a potential striking range of 4. Cruisers, destroyers, bombers, and battleships are too expensive for what they provide. Never buy these. I can elaborate if people are interested.
3. Don't buy a factory. With just Japan production, Japan can push 6 land units into Asia without a factory. Japan with 35-45 income simply can't afford to produce more land units while defending against US naval builds. If Japan doesn't buy enough fighters/subs to deadzone the sea zones, US can move in and take east indies, borneo, and phillipines.

In summary: Don't lose the Japan fleet, and buy mostly infantry and fighters.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 01:34:42 pm by MarineIguana » Logged
Samolito
A&A.org New Conscript

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2016, 06:01:02 am »
0

I usually build 2 fabrics on mainland, because Japan always loses its transports, and its immobile to do any good if you don't have units on mainland. After that i spend 30 IPC on tanks (2 x 3 tanks) or maybe 2 x (2 tanks + 1 inf)
And the just kill India and run for soviet. Preferably both at the same time.
The faster you can put pressure soviet the faster soviet will put money on the Asian side of the instead of in Europe. This gives Germany some room to grow.

Also Germany should always have airplanes ready to kill small tropes that soviet use for stopping japan to blitz Moscow. So then japan can blitz Moscow.
Logged
Ruin
A&A.org Infantry
*
Posts: 8


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2016, 06:54:50 am »
0


First of all, I want to say that USA committing any purchases to the pacific is a mistake.


I can't agree with this 100% anymore.  The winner of the most recent TOC, epikinion, used a USPac strat.  Another elite player, williamilsanguinario, also has been doing this as of late


That said, assuming the US commits to the Pacific...

1. Japan should always sink the US fleet at pearl harbor.

But you don't know that there's a commitment because Japan moves first.  I generally agree that Pearl is important.  However, "always" is too strong. 

Logged
Ruin
A&A.org Infantry
*
Posts: 8


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2016, 06:56:22 am »
0

sorry i didn't realize this thread was three years old, well if anyone wants to argue with me I'm down
Logged
Kreuzfeld
A&A.org Tank
***
Posts: 387


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2016, 01:20:36 am »
0

First of all, I want to say that USA committing any purchases to the pacific is a mistake. For the same amount of resources, the USA can always pressure Germany more than Japan. This is from my experience playing hundreds of revised games, many at a high level.

That said, assuming the US commits to the Pacific...

1. Japan should always sink the US fleet at pearl harbor. If this is done, Japan generally starts with a 1 battleship, 2 carrier, 3 fighter advantage compared to the USA that will take 5+ turns of buildup for the US to overcome.
2. The US can't make significant advances unless the Japan fleet is destroyed. The best way to stall the USA is to place your fleet in the sea zone off the phillipines or china and deadzone all sea zone within 2 spaces of Japan's fleet. Have the carriers filled with fighters AND try to have an equal number of fighters in a land territory that can reach all the sz within 2 spaces of Japan's fleet. For example, 2 carriers can support 8 fighters attacking a sea zone.
3. Japan can continue pushing land units into asia, even with all US purchases going to the pacific. My typical purchases are like 6 inf and 2 fighters. With the Japan fleet off of China

From what I have seen when the allies does a KJF is that, PH really isn't that easy. If UK commits and is lucky, PH can be very difficult. Complete UK commitment would be  UK india ftr attacking the J sub in 45 with the australia sub, and then landing on PH. The Australia TT taking 2 infs to papua, the indian TT taking 2 infs to borneo, The UK CR attacking the japanese TT in 59 and the India CW either standing in 36 or 49.  At this point, taking PH might be difficult for japan. If they do it with air only (5 ftrs + bomber) they will lose about 3 ftrs for 2 ftrs, 1 cw, and 1 sub. The good news is that they will not lose boats to a counterattack, and can use their boats to deal with the british fleet, the bad news is that they are spread out, will be in trouble on land and will take 3 ftrs in losses for only 36 US ipcs (+ 10 UK).  If they try to do a heavy PH, alot of the uk fleet survives and UK will keep borneo until J3.

I still feel it is a bad move, since you are handing africa to the axis, but japan will be in trouble.
Logged
Pages: 1
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2017 Support Drive

Read about this support drive.
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Field Marchal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2015 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!