Japan Basic Strategies, Concepts and Ideas

[a44bigdog]

kendric the problem is for you to be in a position to threaten the transports you should be in range of a destroyer. There is no sense chasing after a sub before it is truly a threat. And once it truly becomes a threat it is vulnerable.

I am also beginning to form the opinion once Japan has made its early grab of the Islands and got up and running on the mainland the Islands may not be worth fighting over. NOs or no NOs. One of the most expensive things in A&A is an ignored fleet.

[Jennifer]

But you see, Kendric, you are talking one or two submarines.

Others are talking about buying almost nothing but submarines. (Probably nothing but submarines added to whatever ships they have left on their first turn.)

I am not saying one or two submarines are not worth having around.  Just like one or two anti-aircraft guns are worth having around, or a German transport somewhere in the Indian Ocean can be worth having (load Japanese on it, move it, unload Japanese, whatever.)

But if you need a go-to unit, it’s the destroyer, the work horse of the fleet.

[Enigmatic_Decay]

First off let me introduce myself, though I am new to this board as a member I have observed it for a while and I am rather experienced with A&A having played many versions over the last 15 years.

This being said I thought I would jump into this topic as I noticed that something hasn’t been mentioned yet.

If the hypothetical multiple subs vs multiple bombers and a destroyer theory is further examined we can safely say that all subs will not be lost, in fact if we compare an equal ipc value say 1dd 8ipc’s and 6 bombers 72ipcs for a total of 80 ipc’s vs: 13 subs 78ipc’s chances are that somewhere between 7 and 9 subs should still remain.

Let me explain:
First the dd rolls, 33%  chance of a hit
next the 6 bombers roll with the odds stating that 4 bombers will hit
So we’re looking at 7 hits max with the odds saying more likely 4-5

during the counterattack 13 subs fire back, again, we’ll go with the odds here and say 2 hits. Since the subs can’t hit the bombers the destroyer MUST be chosen as a casualty leaving lets say 8 subs and 6 bombers left. Since the subs can’t hit the bombers and the bombers can’t hit the subs without a destroyer, the battle is over and 8 subs remain.

Yes the sub owner did suffer a greater loss in ipc value but the bomber owner better hope he has another DD or that his ships are not in range of the remaining subs or else…… then again this is a hypothetical battle and I know that many players (myself included) who buy subs would not put themselves in this position unless there was a massive reward (a nice big fleet without a DD to hit) or something else worth losing subs for.

I find subs really useful and frequently buy a lot of them usually with great results.

Cheers,

Enigmatic_Decay

[Jennifer]

I mentioned that in my results.  If I remember correctly, 3,333 submarines were lost at sea and the attacker lost 1 destroyer.  Now, if you really had those units, the attacker would still have 4,999 bombers and the defender would still have 6,667 submarines, but now the submarines have nothing to attack. :)

[Romulus]

We should consider two things prior to throw all our submarines miniatures out of the window.

Using submarine as fodder for attacking is cheap.
In the sample made by Darth Maximus, Jennifer countered adding another sub. So what if the attacker adds another sub to the pool? The attacker has still saved 2 IPC and iterating the attacker will be able to have more sub than the enemy will have destroyers. The problem is, the more sub are in the attacking force the less destroyers one can use as fodder. So attacking sub create exceptions to an unwritten rule: the DD are the main cannon fodder for the fleets. It will require to the defender to lose some CA or AC to preserve the DD and when the regular fire of the remaining attacking units will come, could be neede to lose more valuable units to preserve some DDs. Using attacking submarines will change the way loss are selected, the defender will not more able to loss first all the cheap DDs and then the remaining of the fleet. Sure this is not a dramatic change but is something to be considered when shaping the tool for killing the enemy fleet. This will create an opportunity for the opponents to make an error in selecting his casualties, and it is always a good thing to create opportunity for an error of the enemy.

Sending the submarine fleet all stacked togheter in the same seazone is useless, they require only one DD to be destroyed as Jennifer correctly said. But if they are used in smaller groups they may create problems. This is a behaviour that is not common in A&A. In A&A it is common to stack unit to increase their aggregated value. Subs, instead, may be used as lonely units. They open the scenario to maneuvering. In the Pacific, not in the Atlantic that is too small for this.

A&A is interesting because there is several tools for different task, trying to have all done with a single unit is not what the game rules are for. I have played few games but right now, in my first games, I am thinking that few submarines may integrate the offensive strategy of a fleet: forcing opponents to buy DDs, forcing him to have DDs and aircrafts in the position to hit submarines, maneuvering them around create problems to the opponent and may create opportunity for the attacking fleet.

[Jennifer]

I’m not really saying to take all the submarines out and melt them down to make new playing chips.  What I’m saying is that submarines are hopelessly underpowered.

I’ve built them myself.  I’ve encountered them.  So far there has been one underlying, fundamental truth:  The side with more submarines in its fleet losses the naval battle.  I’ve yet to see a naval battle where one side had more submarines than the other and won.

[Enigmatic_Decay]

If you did mention it I’m sorry as I did not see it!
Either way I think this argument is still too based on hypothetical theory and not on practicality (no offense intended)
I for one, would never let my sub fleet get creamed for nothing and I feel that more players than not wouldn’t either.
Subs in the right hands can be very deadly weapons. In a game I played as the axis last week I baited an American player into attacking a fleet of subs, and set him up so I could destroy his fleet, he wasn’t a very good player but he was still left with the problem of whether or not to leave my subs in which case I would have been able to re-enforce and attack with them, or he could have attacked them and become vulnerable to my main strike force, which he did and lost very poorly.

Furthermore, I agree with the split sub theory as I think that a smart sub player doesn’t have a large stack of subs (unless using the cannon fodder defense theory) but many smaller stacks spread out.

[bugoo]

I think I see what everyone is saying, now I could be wrong but these are my assumptions that I base this on.

A) Most of the pacific early game fighting is for island dominance, mainly Indies, Borneo, Carolina, and Phillipeans.
B) Japan has the fleet advantage, but there fleet is primarily defensive based (carriers)
C) Japan fleet has a perceived weakness, no DDs to start and half of there boats (carriers) and venerable to subs.

J1: hits islands, etc.  Importantly, 2 carriers in Japan SZ or 1 SZ nearby, 1 AC/Cruiser in SZ 37 near Burma, 1 BB in SZ 50 near phillipeans.
US1: purchases, lets go crazy 5 subs 1 trannie.
J2: hits india, etc.  Cannot send boats within range of subs, cannot even block the dang things. Buys DDs.
US2: sends 5 subs 1 loaded AC, 1 DD, 2 bombers to SZ46/Solomon. Purchases 2nd AC, another trannie, maybe a bomber, more subs, DDs, whatever with leftover.
J3: cannot go into any of the above listed islands or die.  Best case rally at SZ 50 with DD, but that fleet is exposed to bombers, 4 fighters, subs, etc.  Plus fleet maybe splintered.  Doesnt even want to hit the US fleet to sink the surface vessels because subs can submerge and counter next round with reinforcements.
US3: island grab time!

And as far as blocking destroyers, a sub heavy US build best get some UK can opener planes in the area!

So I would have to agree that using the above concept in theory can give the US the initiative in the pacific and force japan to dance to there tune!

Now to build just subs is dumb, but 5 subs US1 can put a hurtin on japan.

[Romulus]

@Cmdr:

I’m not really saying to take all the submarines out and melt them down to make new playing chips.  What I’m saying is that submarines are hopelessly underpowered.

I’ve built them myself.  I’ve encountered them.  So far there has been one underlying, fundamental truth:  The side with more submarines in its fleet losses the naval battle.  I’ve yet to see a naval battle where one side had more submarines than the other and won.

Commander Jennifer, I agree with you for the arguments you have already said.

Briefly: submarine are weak in defense, they are useless to stop movements, they do not inhibit loading and unloading.
All this think are fact and I agree with them.

What I was trying to do is exploring situations in which they may be useful.
I think that the vastness of the Pacific Ocean may allow the submarine to be used while the Atlantic, being more smaller, do not allow such maneuvering, force to stack sub, and definitely make them more vulnerable to a single DD and airpower.
So Germany, in many games, should only use the subs already on the board without buying more.

[Jennifer]

Submarine for Japan:

Uses:

1 or 2 Submarines from Japan, when coupled with 3 carriers, 6 fighters, battleship, cruiser and destroyer (basically what you start with) could be sent out in hopes of getting past America ships and sinking transports.  I don’t see it happening, but it could.

Problem:

1)  12 IPC is a bomber.

2)  12 IPC is a cruiser

3)  12 IPC is 4 Infantry

4)  12 IPC is 3 Artillery

5)  12 IPC is Infantry, Artillery, Armor

etc.  All are better choices IMHO.

America is slightly better off.  Since you have no navy of which to speak anyway, a few submarines would at least encourage Japan to put two destroyers in the water (8 IPC if they did not lose the one they start with, 16 if they did.)  1 Destroyer for the SZ 62 fleet, 1 Destroyer for the SZ 36 fleet of transports - Your warships being busy killing things and your carriers being present with the transports of course.)

Doesn’t mean I’d go out and buy 8 submarines a round for 10 rounds though.

[Uncle_Joe]

Doesn’t mean I’d go out and buy 8 submarines a round for 10 rounds though.

But it does mean that they arent useless, which was your earlier position that drew the response. I believe it was something along the lines of ‘use them for toothpicks’ or ‘build anything but’ or ‘they are completely laughable’.

If you are having to build the early DDs and worrying about getting the DDs to your fleets then they are provoking a response. And they can continue to do that all game depending on circumstances. Yes, if someone drops 5 DDs on turn 2 or 3, its prolly time to stop making them.

There is a world of difference between ‘useless, never build more than one or two’ and ‘build 8 a round for 10 rounds’. Somewhere in that difference is their true utility and it will vary from game to game. They are more situational units than some, but that doesnt mean that they cant be extremely useful in the right game conditions. I’d say I build 1 or 2 many games (just to force the DDs), but I rarely build a pile. In the right situation, they can be game-breakers or at the very least, keep your opponent off balance for a round or two. In the wrong situation, continuing to build them can be folly.

[Jennifer]

And I still feel that way.  But as with any unit, having 1, maybe 2, of it on the board is helpful.

Even building a Bomber with Russia in Revised had SOME uses, and I’d liken buying submarines in AA50 to buying a Russian Bomber or Fighter in AAR. (Though the Fighter does turn out to be helpful in games where you think your opponent isn’t 100% on his game with the Axis.)

[Enigmatic_Decay]

I’d like to try and maintain a sub fleet of between 6 and 12 subs they work well for me.
Pity I couldn’t try that strategy against you sometime Jen as I might be able to show you how it can work or vice versa. I’ve read a lot of your posts and you are quite knowledgeable but I do have to disagree with you here. Cheers!

[kendric]

The sad thing is, until triplea a supports the new sub rules, I won’t be able to test this out :) I like the live action playing of triplea. I should just offer to code it for them or something heh. Does anyone know if the engine is being modified for anniv? I know the map files are out already but not the engine mods.

[a44bigdog]

Its a shame a good discussion of Japanese strategies got derailed by an argument about subs. Let me see if I can’t throw out a few things to get us back on track.

Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?

When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?

What are your responses to US naval builds and why?

[Uncle_Joe]

Its a shame a good discussion of Japanese strategies got derailed by an argument about subs. Let me see if I can’t throw out a few things to get us back on track.

Not really, because subs can or cannot make a big difference in Pacific (and thus Japanese strategy).

Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?

Depends on my build and whether I lost any Fighters, but usually 1 goes to Japan and 1 to Okinawa. That leaves them close for mutual support but gives them both a slightly different range of operation on J2.

When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?

That completely depends on the Allied response. If they go KGF or even dont make 100% commitment to the Pacific, IC goes in Manchuria on J2 to crush the Chinese and any remaining Russians. A second IC will likely come down in India or Burma depending on the situation.

What are your responses to US naval builds and why?

More or less depends on what the US does build in SanFran, but usually I’ll go with CVs and Fighters (and some throwaway DDs). They give the greatest range of operation and they can combine up the most firepower in an area efficiently. Add some Fighters to island bases if the US is serious about fighting in the Pacific. Usually Bombers are a pretty safe bet because if you win the sea, they can quickly shift to wrecking Russia’s factories.

In general, I’ve found Okinawa to be a key point for Japan to station a few ships. It allows you to block off the SoPac from the US if need be by dropping a ship at Pearl. This can often buy you a turn to get moving from Japan.

I’ve found that so far, the US pretty much has the initiative in the Pacific. Japan has to split her time and attention for the first few turns giving the US some time to start mucking around. That draws Japanese resources away from the continent and buys Russia and maybe the Brits some time. Japan cant ignore a US presence or she will quickly start losing large chunks of income. This means that the battles should not stagnate between experienced players. Our first few games has the big standoffs and arms races but since then its been all fluid battles where smaller fleets are sparring rather than massive fleets going for win or lose battles.

[Jennifer]

I am leaning more and more towards Japan going into Pacific turtle mode and throwing tanks into Asia.

I think I’d normaly still hit Kwangtung, Hupeh, Suiyuan, Yunnan, Sumatra, Borneo, Philippines, SZ 53, SZ 35, SZ 56 (might drop this from the list) and SZ 50 on the first round.

From here a strike on Australia would be good showmanship (kills a British NO and gives Japan one) after that, it’s racing back to SZ 51 with everything, maybe SZ 62 and going all out tank war into Asia Minor.

[Heavy Deed]

going all out tank war into Asia Minor.

back to square one huh? some strategy… :|

[a44bigdog]

@a44bigdog:

Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?

I like to position the sea zone 57 carriers in 51. This allows the aircraft on them to take down Australia on J2. Even if the US Flies the Hawaii fighter and the sea zone 44 fighter to Australia these fighters with the sea zone 37 fighters (from sea zone 35 attack) will be enough to take Australia. I will also sacrifice fighters to take Australia if necessary for 3 reasons. 1.) It is a 5 IPC NO so 2 rounds of the NO will replace a fighter. 2.) It removes the UK NO whether Egypt falls or is liberated. 3.) It is a good ways from Japan to Australia so I think it is best to get the job done from the start rather than have to try and come back latter.

@a44bigdog:

When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?

I build a Japanese IC turn 1 and save 2 IPCs. This allows my carriers to be off projecting power and not at home protecting transports. On turn 2 I can produce with this IC the 1 or 2 transports I need to start emptying Japan into sea zone 61 so that the transports are again safe from American air. On turn two either the sea zone 37 carrier or one of the sea zone 51 carriers can move to sea zone 61 to join with these transports. I build a second IC in Manchuria on either turn 2 or 3 depending on what the Russians have done. Remember Russia can only liberate Chinese territories, Russia itself can gain no benefit from them. Any Russian force that comes south from Buryatia can be dealt with at my choosing. My primary immediate goal in Asia is to eliminate the ability of China to produce infantry by the end of J2. Remember Chinese infantry are free. All others have to be paid for and shipped to Asia.

@a44bigdog:

What are your responses to US naval builds and why?

I have been counter building against the US navy once they start to match my fleet in size. I am beginning to think this is no longer entirely necessary or even the best course of action.
One mus task oneself what are Japan’s goals, and are my actions contributing towards those goals. I think America makes too much money for Japan to take down in AA50. So that basically leaves Russia. With that in mind I am thinking Japan should do as Jenn stated after the initial land and money grabs in the Pacific. Pull the fleet back to Japan and start dumping 8 units a turn out of Japan and 5 Armor a turn from the 2 ICs. The transports at Australia and New Guinea at the end of J2 can be used to grab remaining money islands without being protected. They are too far from Japan to return home in much time to be of much use and the money they earn through captured can go to their replacements if any such are even needed.

[bugoo]

Has anyone ever had the UK send there destroyer to SZ 48 to block forcing Japan to choose between India and Australia?  Would it slow you down in the Pacific? Also, how likely would you be to strike the US carrier/ destroyer if they took position in SZ 46 or 53 assuming a large US naval purchase? Would you be more likely to attack them if they also landed there two bombers on the respective islands?