J1 attack very tough on allies

My opinion of a J1 attack is that you are forced into a lot more lower-odds battles that you will find harder to recover from if they go poorly. You simply dont have the troops in Asia or at sea to absorb hits if the Chinese/Brits/US get a few decent rolls in any of those battles. Also, I think you’ll find it hard to kill the Royal Navy, pin down the USN, and secure the DEI while simultaneously hitting China with a maximum effort. And if you skimp in any of those areas you open yourself up to a bad battle or two from which it can much harder to retake the initiative.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think a J1 attack is BAD, but I do think that J2 (or even J3 depending on Allied reaction) is a safer but still effective play. My sense of the game balance is that it isnt really out of whack, but good Allied play takes a bit more experience. I think most people’s initial reaction is that Japan is very tough to beat (regardless of the opening). But with a bit of time and experience, the Allies become tougher and tougher.

I completely agree with Joe.

Captured Phillipines(using all 3 transp), cut Burma road, took few China territories.

Also, I have a question here. What do you use to escort the TRs? Is it that force that then relocates to Truk on J2? Is that force strong enough to stand off the US starting fleet + reinforcements? Can it survive if it has to move to engage the US off of Queensland (ie, it has to be able to BEAT the US force, then survive the US bomber counter-attack immediately followed by the Anzac air attack + any stray ship Anzac might have). My experience is that your fleet is going to take a ridiculous beating if you try and and while you might even ‘win’ the combats, you’ll have almost zero navy left and the US will be churning out ships with 55/turn supporting Anzac raids on the DEI.

IMO, Japan has to try and conserve her fleet a while longer until she can exploit her conquests in China and the Brit holding and gain an econ on par with the US. If you lose a substantial portion of your fleet and you are making <50 IPCs a turn you are going to be in for a lot of hurt from repeated US/Anzac attacks on your econ.

honestly, Japan doesn’t need to do more than trade ships.  Soon they be out producing the allies.  Right now we have a game going where Japan is making 75 a turn, not a big deal that US is making 55.  That’s an extra battleship per turn.

You’re not going to be making 75 a turn on J2 or J3 and he could easily lose the bulk of his fleet by then with this strat. Honestly I think the bulk of the people using the J1 strat are playing against less experienced Allied players who panic and make poor moves in response. They feel the need (as we did at first) to immediate begin to do something and then they get caught and killed by the superior Japanese starting forces.

But IMO, a J1 attack puts Japan on a VERY tight timetable. She MUST get that econ into the 60s very quickly or it’s going to go downhill pretty quickly them. Is it possible? Sure it is. It wouldn’t be a very good game if there werent options for when to attack and how. But I dont think it’s anywhere NEAR as easy as many are claiming if playing against Allied players who dont panic and who have a clear idea of how to set up proper counter-attacks.

After J1 attack royal navy is down to DD CA beside India. One-third of Japanese navy more than a match. If they could run away to Africa, they would. Also easier to take unoccupied DEI than if you let British inf in there.

And 4 Fighters and a Tac. That is a lot of firepower to hit the reduced IJN fleet in the area. Granted it tends to cost the Brits pretty heavily as well, but with no real fleet presence in the DEI, the Anzacs can come out to play and the Japanese will find it hard to secure the islands for long.

I would attack where ever the US fleet is absent from. Hawaii or Queensland.

Without killing the starting US fleet, Hawaii would likely be a suicide run. The US could hit with a fleet off Queensland coupled with anything bought at San Fran. Hitting Hawaii on J3 without killing the US fleet would be folly IMO.

Don’t attack ANZAC until UK is dead. Just threaten to attack.

I dont see how you have the TR capacity to make a serious threat against ANZAC with a J1 attack. I would be using the ANZAC force to prep to threaten the DEI to take it or re-take it depending on what the Japanese do.

The key thing is that Japan can’t be everywhere. There will be plenty of room for the Allies to nibble at the edges and Japan really will need to secure Asia in a hurry with the US breathing down their backs from US1.

No matter what, Japan is on an economic time table.  They need to get there income into the 60s ASAP.  The best way to do that is to take the DEI.  Then they need capitals, the easiest one is India.

Use the ANZAC to harass Japan, put subs in convoy spots, block with DDs, grab islands with sacrifical transports.  Anything you can.

Use the UK to bloody there nose.  Create large stacks on burma road, or even in India itself.  You must be a magnet and draw Japan’s resources.

The US has to get the big hits in.  As early as US2 you can strike Carolines with your starting fleet and all your surviving starting planes.  Aside from that you must establish naval superiority against Japan and get the big hit in.

I’ll say this again.  If you play AGGRESSIVE, there is no reason NOT to attack on J1.  Someone link me to a perfect version of the starting map in abattle or whatever it’s called and everything I need to use it, and I’d LOVE to talk strats (Vareel, I’m talking to you)

I’ll say this again.  If you play AGGRESSIVE, there is no reason NOT to attack on J1.

If by AGGRESSIVE, you mean RISKY (or at least RISKIER) then I’m inclined to agree 100%. It’s more of higher risk/higher reward option IMO. I do think it leaves you more open to being zapped by the dice, but if that doesn’t happen you are probably in a superior position depending on how the Allies respond. But ‘aggressive’ does not always mean ‘better’….

Here’s what I mean.  If you are willing to lose planes (4th commandment of A&A has always been do not use planes as soakers, I know!) then you can run over the mainland of Asia.

We have a game going right now. I think we’re in turn 6, it might be 7 and Japan is earning 75 a turn.  Japan has a fleet sitting at the Phils consisting of 6 CVs with 6 of each plane, 3 BBs, 2 CAs, and 14DDs.  There is NOTHING that can be done against that by the US/ANZAC who are earning 65.  I could care less that the US has a Fleet of 3 CVs, 3 BBs, 1CA and 18DDs sitting in Queensland.  I’m making 10 more per turn.  I can dump 7 zeros and an infantry down in the homeland if he thinks about heading north, and my fleet can cut his off.  Again, Japan is making 75, US 55, ANZAC 10.  This is not “atypical” for a game around these parts.

With the low number of units the Allies have at the start of the game I also thought of trying a J1 push.

some thoughts:

Burma road - it enables the Chinese to buy artillery instead Infantry - would that be so bad? China starts with 12IPC = 4 INF OR 3 ART/INF mixture. Art is also only hepling in attack (wouldn’t Japan like it that  China attacks?).

IIRC then a lone Trsp (Hawaii) does NOT provoke combat - leavr trsp alone and focus on the Island - enables shore bombardment - so JP fleet could go to Hawaii and block out the US fleet (IIRC the JP is larger)

Securing Malaya and/HK is prime priority - could you “ignore” Phillies for a turn (no chance to build there)? we are used to attack phillies first, but is it necessary?

Instead of an minor IC in China - I’d buy a 3rd transport for shuttling troops from Japan (quite a stack there)

IC then on J2

If you take Hawaii and Hongkong J1 and Phillies J2 you have 5 VCs

From there you can deceide wether you go after India or Australia - depending on how many trs you have fully loaded.

i this scenario China and teh DEI would NOT be prime targets as they supply IPCs and this strategy focusses on speed

If you capture enough VC it does not matter how much US produces.

I might add taking Hawaii and splanting your J fleet there allows (fly planes to Hawaii for scrambling ;)
to delay the US fleet for some time (even strike out at the West Coast initial fleet - US can’t build too much on US 1) at J2

I know its risky, but this stratregy mirrors somewhat the original Japanese plan in 1941. Strike Quick and Strike hard - then the war is over.

Here’s what I mean.  If you are willing to lose planes (4th commandment of A&A has always been do not use planes as soakers, I know!) then you can run over the mainland of Asia.

We have a game going right now. I think we’re in turn 6, it might be 7 and Japan is earning 75 a turn.  Japan has a fleet sitting at the Phils consisting of 6 CVs with 6 of each plane, 3 BBs, 2 CAs, and 14DDs.  There is NOTHING that can be done against that by the US/ANZAC who are earning 65.  I could care less that the US has a Fleet of 3 CVs, 3 BBs, 1CA and 18DDs sitting in Queensland.  I’m making 10 more per turn.  I can dump 7 zeros and an infantry down in the homeland if he thinks about heading north, and my fleet can cut his off.  Again, Japan is making 75, US 55, ANZAC 10.  This is not “atypical” for a game around these parts.

Interesting. We NEVER see those kind of build ups in our games! Good lord, no wonder the Japanese are winning easily - it sounds like the US is just sitting around trying to outproduce the starting Japanese fleet + reinforcements. Well that is never gonna work…

In any case, that game is already over - the Allies have lost. They lost it turns and turns ago and THAT is where the vulnerability is in a J1 attack. And the Allies in that game have totally missed that opportunity. You can pack that one up and start again. ;)

The big thing about these heavy hitting J1s is they are gimmicky, once you have seen the plan once then you will know how to stop it a second time.  The allies will be prone to making mistakes, but after enough games I feel you will see how to exploit each and every J1 plan.

Hey guys, I dont mean to sound like a neophyte here, but I assume when you say J1, you mean Japan attacks the US on the 1st turn, presumably in the Phillipines. My own experience says this is not sound judgment. Let say you commit forces to grab the phillipines. You just dropped US production by 7 and increased yours by 7. That’s a 14 IPC difference in favor of the empire. Now of course you just increased US production by 40 two rounds early. By my count, that’s 28 vs 80 over those two rounds. Economically speaking, it’s not sound, so let’s talk about strategic value…

The phillipines cannot produce. They have to be reinforced by ships that take 3 rounds to arrive. During those first 3 rounds, the allies use peacetime to send the biggest fleet possible down to support the phillipines while rebuilding Western US fleet for the eventual assault on Japan (supported by at least 4 bombers on Midway, three of which were grabbed from the phillipines, hawaii and west-usa). Once all that is done, you have a noteworthy fleet in the phillipines and some nice IPC (7) to support the war effort). That sounds nice, but…

If that fleet ever leaves the phillipines, the phillipines are vulnerable. So they are stuck there, providing only IPC protection and the threat of a sneak attack deterrent. They certainly dont have the units to perform some kind of an asian invasion. Since the phillipines cant produce, I’m not even sure what the value of the island actually is, other than the 7 IPC. The usa cant trickle more ships down there after peacetime ends, so their effectively cut off from reinforcements as well. Unless you later decide to send down a big protected fleet, but that will take 3 turns, ruin your offensive, and give away your plans long before they come to fruition.

Based on all of that, if I was japan, I would not attack the phillipines until round 4. And if the US had a sizable fleet down there, then I’d just let em sit there the whole game until they decided to foolishly attack my fleet and leave the tasty IPC production of the phillipines unprotected.

Yes, that is what a ‘J1 attack’ refers to. :)

But the goal is to prevent the Allies in Asia from increasing their econ. By attacking on J1, you can kill both Brit TRs and 2 of the 3 US TRs starting out as well as deny the Brits their bonus income from control of their 2 starting major ports. So in essence you are trading that US income boost for a reduced Brit income (and the ability to kill the BB and TRs while they are vulnerable alone).

I think the timing for a Japanese attack will vary from game to game based on Allied responses. Of course that is irrelevant if you are attacking on J1, but IMO a J1 attack is not as weighted of a blow and it is subject to reverses if the dice dont cooperate in any of the battles.

I’ve tried the J1 attack and while I won the game as Japan, it was largely due to the Allies not making a cohesive response. I’m guessing that is probably true for a lot of people playing against the J1 attack at this point and thus it looks so successful. But I’ve also beaten the J1 attack as the Allies twice in a row now and it was a far easier road than when I played against a good J2 attack previously.

This is probably one of those issues that people will debate for a long time (and that’s a good thing IMO). It helps keep the game from getting stale since there is less of a ‘scripted’ opening.