If Japan is declaring war on everyone like in real life, the Allies should just do what they did in history. Wait to build your forces and catch small isolated units of the Japanese fleet. Hold on to India and Australia. Germany first.
Beating J1
-
I have seen an increasing number of top players focused on KGF with ANZAC turtling for much of the game. It truly is hard for Japan to capture Australia or Hawaii with just a little bit of USA assistance. Fighters are such a great unit since they provide so much protection on defense, can threaten fleets with a few sacrificial subs, and can strafe ground units. Never underestimate the strafe against Japan as ground units are so precious. Often I will sacrifice USA planes for Japan infantry. A 1:2 exchange can still be a strategic victory for the United States.
-
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Beating J1:
I have seen an increasing number of top players focused on KGF with ANZAC turtling for much of the game. It truly is hard for Japan to capture Australia or Hawaii with just a little bit of USA assistance. Fighters are such a great unit since they provide so much protection on defense, can threaten fleets with a few sacrificial subs, and can strafe ground units. Never underestimate the strafe against Japan as ground units are so precious. Often I will sacrifice USA planes for Japan infantry. A 1:2 exchange can still be a strategic victory for the United States.
I think, when japan consolidates his navy and transports around Carolines on J1 (no DOW) then buying a tpt with anzac is not a good idea. Even when japan DOW on J2 or J3 while slowly building up around carolines, anzac might fall easier than you think. I always thought anzac was very to take in the early game, but buying to much fleet in the beginnin with japan around carolines opens the door to an early invasion.
-
Another approach is to use an all-board system of VCs, when we do this we add Johannesburg as a VC. You can either bid or reduce the power of the Axis, examples include removing a Japanese Air Pair, or reducing the NO for Russian VC from 5 to 3 (or other 5’s to 3s’).
You’re correct sir that its too easy for Japan to win in KGF mode.
The JDOW J1 is strong and its also a pat opener (no decisions need be made, all the J1 moves are planned for you, more or less). However, it leaves SZ6 and Iwo vulnerable to an immediate step-up by the USA, and buying factories weakens the Japanese effort even further by attempting to take too much too fast. KJF is not a good way to win tne overall OOB game but it is quite effective when a giant USA fleet builds over what Japan has in SZ 6 and then forces Japan to step back to defend its homeland. Since you are denying Japan peak income in this scenario, the USA is simply too powerful for them to stop and while Tokyo may not fall, the smaller Allies have a field day.
-
@taamvan which turn are you proposing that the Allies step up to SZ6 after a J1? I don’t see many options until at least turn 4.
-
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris immediately. If 2 J carriers go south they take Iwo on the first turn.
A careful allocation of stuff left behind on the Home Islands might make that dangerous, but I’ve been beaten at least twice (as Japan JDOWing) when my opponent took advantage of how thin I left the back lines and forced me to recoil back in defense. That could be my lack of finesse/skill though as the axis, and/or it could require that fewer objectives (more conservative play) are taken in the J1 such that more can stay home…I guess I could try it again Saturday
-
@taamvan I always send my Japanese navy South on a J1 DOW, but there is a fair number of forces that could return back to SZ6 or SZ17 on J2 if the United States wanted to send out their tiny force to those areas. I don’t understand why they would want to sacrifice their Pearl Harbor fleet for virtually no gain.
do check out the standard J1 attack plans since the details are quite important. It is devastating in an OOB match.
-
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris I’m not remembering it correctly…its been a while. I guess all I can preserve of my original point is that if Japan is too aggressive and attacks too early, and builds too many factories too quickly, USA can outbuild them–and/or step up and take Iwo.
-
@ShadowHAwk So let’s say someone does the slightly revised Cow J1 attack and has 2 DDs and 3 transports in SZ6 that are also protected by 3 fighters. What would be your response on USA1?
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/17005/the-japan-playbook/2
-
@ShadowHAwk I certainly would attack on US1 if Japan leaves SZ6 with three transports and no destroyers. All you need is a single sub, right?
In the situation where only one Japanese destroyer is present, it would be an attractive attack if you think your chance of winning the game is only <20% and need to rely on lucky dice to have a better chance of rebalancing the game. A fortuitous victory could be equivalent to a +40 shift towards the Allies as so much of the strategy changes for Japan.
Perhaps this is the situation for an OOB match played by email against an opponent of equal or superior skill.
-
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Beating J1:
@ShadowHAwk So let’s say someone does the slightly revised Cow J1 attack and has 2 DDs and 3 transports in SZ6 that are also protected by 3 fighters. What would be your response on USA1?
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/17005/the-japan-playbook/2
I would certainly not make that attack. It is a mere 28% chance of success and that does not take into account Kamikazes so it is more likely less than 10%.
Having said that to @Arthur-Bomber-Harris point there is a threshold that a lesser Player would happily make that attack even at under 50% odds. Since losing those three transports is a disaster for Japan and, while maybe not a game losing move, would dramatically attribute to losing the game a lesser Player certainly would probably take odds all the way down to 33% for the reward vs risk comparison.
-
I ran the full odds assuming 5 Kamikaze attacks used in the defense:
1 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 47% chance of USA victory
1 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 20% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 14% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 4% chance of USA victoryIf I were playing against an equally experience Axis opponent in a no-bid OOB game, I would accept the 20% chance of a victory. In a game with a bid to balance the start, I would want the 47% chance to win.
Game theory optimized (GTO) play becomes an important topic to discuss now. You want your opponent to play more conservatively because he knows that you will take calculated risks if it gives you a higher probability of winning. If the opponent fears the SZ6 attack, they will leave the 2DD + 3Fighters behind in defense. This gives a significant advantage to the Allies even if you don’t attack. If you play overly conservative as Allies, Japan can be more aggressive with his forces and gain more momentum towards India.
-
@ShadowHAwk in the cases where the Axis scores 2 kamikaze hits to take out the American destroyer and cruiser (50% chance), the most likely outcome is that the Japanese take minimal damage and have a +35 PU swing from the combat. The benefits magnify over the next few turns as Japan might not need a sacrificial destroyer to shipblock SZ6 movement, and might be able to threaten the USA fleet if they want to move adjacent to Queensland. Germany can go wild with Dark Skies since the United States cannot put enough spending into the Atlantic to protect their fleet and recover in the Pacific. It really will swing the early game significantly in the Axis’ favor to a point where a competent player should have a 95+% chance of winning in a no-bid OOB match.
The plus side for the Allies is massively advantageous if the dice favor them in the 14-20% USA1 SZ6 battle. Perhaps a big sub build will allow convoy raiding Japan early on since he is down a destroyer or two, and might not be able to build in SZ6 on J2 with the fleet threatening annihilation. Having only 2-3 Japanese destroyers to prevent convoy raids is going to be a huge problem. It will be equivalent to having a 60 PU bid for the Allies.
I think that the game would almost be at a point to call it decided at that point since there will be very few significant battles to catch back up over the next six or seven turns. This gets back into the discussion of how bad of a first turn outcome are you willing to continue playing through.
-
@ShadowHAwk said in Beating J1:
Though weird, with 2dd and 2 fighters your defensive power is a lot less yet you got a higher chance of winning as japan.
That is because the US sub is surviving and killing the Japan transports in the other circumstance. You have to modify the OOL to make sure a Jap DD survives till the end to be around to kill the US sub in case it is not taken as a casualty immediately. Winning the sea/air battle but having a US sub survive to kill the 3 transports is in essence a loss for the Axis.
Not sure how @Arthur-Bomber-Harris is accounting for the Kamikazes. TripleA does not take them into account. If it were me I would use all 6; 3 on each DD and CA. However using 5 we would go 3 on the Cruiser and 2 on the DD I assume. This definitely tests my math skills but let’s give it a try:
*70% the CA is hit
*30% the CA is missed
*55% the DD also is hit when the CA is hit therefore .70 x .55 = 38.5% both hit
*70%-38.5% means only the CA is hit 31.5% of the time
*55% the DD is hit when the CA is missed therefore .3 x .55 = 16.5% only the DD is hit
*100 - 38.5 - 31.5 - 16.5 = 13.5
Thus
*38.5% both CA and DD hit
*31.5% only the CA hit
*16.5% only the DD is hit
*13.5% neither units are hitThe same battles with OOL of = US DD, CA, 2 fighters, SS vs IJN with one DD always last AND taking into consideration the above percentages for Kamikaze results. For example run the battle without the DD and CA and weight it at 38.5% then again without the CA only at 31.5% and so on for all four possible results…
1 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 54.50% chance of USA victory
1 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 18.98% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 33.3% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 9.78% chance of USA victoryAs you can see the Jap defense of 3 fighters and 1 DD, with the DD taken last, is a better defense than 2 DDs and 2 fighters with one of the DDs taken last. Which makes sense because it is 4 units defending at 14 instead of 4 units defending at 12. So in essence if you are willing to accept the risk of losing your transports less than 20% of the time you can go with 1 DD and 3 fighters.
-
I did find a mistake in my spreadsheet. Thanks for catching it. Note that we also have to look at the chance that the USA sub is left to destroy the transports after the lone Japanese destroyer is sunk. That is approximately 45% when Japan is defending with 1 DD and 3 Fighters.
I think that I am now a convert and would suggest an attack if Japan leaves only one ship in SZ6. If it has extra protection such as another Japanese destroyer or sub, the USA1 attack likely doesn’t make sense unless you are playing against a far superior opponent or Germany had a ridiculously good G1 opening.
-
No one’s mentioned Japan putting a DD blocker in sz16 on J1. That limits US to attacking with 2 fighters. Japan can defend with 3 planes or 2 planes and a DD.
-
@shadowhawk Good point. I never use J1 DOW, so haven’t studied it, but just thought that potentially having to use up almost all kamikaze on round 1 is unsatisfactory to me. Has to be a better alternative. Blocker in sz16 and build a DD in sz6?
-
@shadowhawk If the Japanese tt can’t prevent U.S. tt from moving into sz6, then the U.S. tt also doesn’t prevent Japanese tt from leaving sz6 during combat move. Only a warship would prevent loading.
-
@shadowhawk Rulebook Europe 1940 second edition p.34 under Unit Profile Transports says “for purposes of determining the status of a sea zone, submarines and transports are ignored.” Just like a warship can pass thru any sea zone containing only subs and tt’s.
-
One strategy I like is buying all strats with the US rds 1 and 2. By the end of rd 3, you have the entire US fleet plus 11 strats and 4 fg on Queensland. This makes it very difficult for the Japan player to position the IJN in a spot where it is not vulnerable. They will usually end up wasting a bunch of DDs as blockers, which is in the Allied players economic advantage. Even if you can’t reach the IJN with your fleet, but can with planes , a triple whammy of 11 strats followed up with attacks by UK and AZ units typically leaves the IJN in a very diminished state and allows you to move the US fleet into a better position once the blockers are cleared out.
And if the Japan player is very cagey or really focuses on protecting and/or bolstering his fleet, the strats can be quickly reallocated to Europe by flying to India, then wherever. Then you can balance out the US spend by buying more fleet in Pacific whilst using the strats to help increase the attack power of whatever US units you managed to get to Europe in rds 3-5 or so.
-
@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:
One strategy I like is buying all strats with the US rds 1 and 2. By the end of rd 3, you have the entire US fleet plus 11 strats and 4 fg on Queensland. This makes it very difficult for the Japan player to position the IJN in a spot where it is not vulnerable. They will usually end up wasting a bunch of DDs as blockers, which is in the Allied players economic advantage. Even if you can’t reach the IJN with your fleet, but can with planes , a triple whammy of 11 strats followed up with attacks by UK and AZ units typically leaves the IJN in a very diminished state and allows you to move the US fleet into a better position once the blockers are cleared out.
And if the Japan player is very cagey or really focuses on protecting and/or bolstering his fleet, the strats can be quickly reallocated to Europe by flying to India, then wherever. Then you can balance out the US spend by buying more fleet in Pacific whilst using the strats to help increase the attack power of whatever US units you managed to get to Europe in rds 3-5 or so.
Not sure how that strategy would work. 3 bombers cost $36 have an OFP of 12 with three units. A carrier and 2 fighters also costs $36 and has a DFP of 10 with 4 units. Assuming the Japanese Player always puts their fleet where any planes have a landing area the chances of winning with the bombers is just 25%, 14% draw, and 61% loss. That means the US Player cannot reasonably gain an advantage on the IJN. Yet the IJN building carriers and fighters will have overwhelming superiority of the pretty naked US fleet so the IJN will own the Pacific. What am I missing?
Suggested Topics
