Is Japan a Monster? [Economic Breakdown]


  • /bugoo

    In the '41 scenario, UK helps against Japan by sending troops over the Middle East to protect Caucasus, by landings in Algeria, builds in South Africa IC, or both. This is later in the game of course, so yes USA is the one bearing the brunt of fighting vs. the Japs for most of the game.

    In the '42 scenario, you also can build an IC in India for a more direct strategy. Haven’t really started playing '42 yet but it looks like a possible strat.


  • You really need to play a 42 setup to see the difference in the Pacific theatre. Japan only has 1 transport so an IC in India can work very well if you spend the first 3 US turns building in the Pacific. I’ve dominated Japan three times already in the 42 setup - the key is sticking to the Pacific with the US. The UK must deal with Italy quickly while Russia does its best to hold off Germany. Despite the low IPC count Russia can defend against the Germans without Japan breathing down their neck.

  • Moderator

    There’s lots of things to respond to so here goes.

    @atarihuana:

    but can us sink the italian fleet and close the suez quickly enough? jap fleet will!! be in the med by turn 4! the idea of 2 BB 3 CA 3 loaded AC  in the med plus jap ICs in India , FIC, possibly burma or eastindies scares me. why? UK income will be at 12 + whats left of africa which wont be much with japan in the med. so you are basically setting up a huge 1-2 punch ( france/ germany)?. this should get playtested :D.

    Yes, you should be able to close the canal in rds 2, 3 and beyond.  From Per you can close it in rds 2 and 3 with the UK and then from rd 4 on, you can close it from Lib to Egy with UK/US.  Typically the Italian fleet is sunk in rds 3 or 4 at the latest.  In a KG(I)F the UK’s income should rarely if ever be below 22-23.  Reclaiming Afr is a top priority, and the Axis never gain full control, it is just to hard to compete with multiple heavy Allied landings in Alg.  I also do not think it is that easy to get a massive Japanese fleet into the Med.
    You’d almost have to bee-line directly for it and that leaves no defense in Sz 62.  Remember the US does have a DD and AC in the Pac to start and 3-4 ftrs, 2 boms, so it is not that hard to fake an Atlantic move then come back to Sz 56 on US 2 or 3.  The point here is the Japanese player cannot assume the US won’t do anything in the Pac.

    @Pin:

    So far we are pretty confident that the US must go Pacific mainly, the goal of this is not to kill the japanese fleet, but force it to stay together so they cant scatter all around the pacific, play cat and mouse, spread out subs in a lot of different sea zones etc, maintain the pacific NO of USA. while this is ongoing UK starts off making sure his fleet can sustain and start moving troops for africa + killing the Italian fleet as fast as possible, the US uses the 2 transports of EUS to shuffle 4 units ECAN to Marocco every turn. This combined with clever use of the the US pacific fleet (and the transport 41) keeps japan and Italy from totally breaking the UK economy.

    This lite shuck (4 US inf per turn) while putting the rest of your resources into the Pac does work quite nicely.  I’ve used this as well.

    @Unknown:

    Japan’s income in this game may be proportional to what it was in previous editions, as you demonstrated, but how long will it enjoy 60-70+ IPC cashouts? Each turn Germany and Italy can hold out is another turn that Japan rakes in the big bucks. So how does this compare to previous editions? I’m not sure, but my guess is that the european axis can hold out longer in this game. Also consider that Japan’s income explodes much quicker in this game than previous ones due to the increase in IPCs in the pacific and of course, NOs. All those turns of high cash outs translate into more and more Jap units on the board, units which the Allies will have to deal with at some point.

    But Japan also starts out weaker with 17 ipc in turn 1 and has to travel farther to get to Mos.  Yes, Japan’s income of 60-65 is a lot of units, but those units won’t hit the front lines for another 4-5 turns.  So if Japan earns 60 in rd 3-4, the Allies don’t need to worry about those units until rd 7-8.  That is a ton of time for the Allies to cripple Italy and help Mos against Germany.
    Off the top of my head I would say if the Allies have crippled Italy (only 9-12 ipc) and are able to land heavy in Kar via trns by rd 6 and Germany doesn’t have Cauc you are in great shape b/c the Allies can drop 16 units per turn into Kar from then on.  They can also be used to help against Japan in an emergency, like having your tanks move to Mos for extra defense.

    @Funcioneta:

    I think KGF is not even possible of do if Japan launchs a massive attack against America. They start with 5 trannies, can buy 2 more round 1 and probably more round 2. With so much trannies, after taking Pacific islands, Japan can send all of them loaded to a combo of sea zones (Hawaii sz and others) threatening Alaska, Wcan and WUSA in such manner USA cannot defend the three and possibily only WUSA, deadzoning wcan. Then, all Japan have to do is land the massive stack in Alaska and trading Wcan, setting a 4 x 4 chain of trannies and maybe a Alaska IC. This will, at least, halt USA in their continent, unable of aiding Africa or Europe (and Africa will be lost to italians in many KGF games were UK fails to build saf IC).

    By the time this occurs Afr and the Italian fleet should be in the process of being cleared, so at this point the US can freely go after or defend against Japan.  A proper US shuck starts in Wus on turn 1 anyway and slowly builds up to 8-10 units (for 4-5 trns to go to Alg).  I just don’t think that it is an inviting target for Japan, to see 8 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wcan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wus.  So the US pulls back one turn and stacks 2 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 14 inf in Wcan, 8 inf, 4 arm in Wus.  Is this a good target for Japan?

    @Funcioneta:

    The bad news are that it was possible in Revised were Japan had much less income (after round 3) and much less starting trannies

    The worst news are that in AA50 soviets cannot annoy Japan with token forces (as they did in Revised) because of larger distances and because Japan has so much income that they can still, while doing the Polar Express, send more guys to soviets and Africa than in Revised

    But supply lines are longer in AA50.
    The Soviets can annoy Japan you just wait until Novo or the last China territory, where you can threaten with your stack of Russian armor in Mos and Cauc.  Russia has about 10 inf out East that can be reatreated and it is definitely possible to get Russia near 10 tanks by round 6-7.  Sometimes the threat of attack is all you need.

    @Funcioneta:

    The horrible news are that western axis can easily beat by economy the UK+USSR combo even without Japan’s aid or at the very least equal them, leading anyway to axis economic victory in long run because Japan colects more than USA

    This is not true.  Remember the US is aiding UK and Russia early.  Russia routinely earns 30+ for the first 3-4 rds at least.  UK will earn between 24-30 and US can contribute 12-24 ipc (4 to 8 inf per turn).  In a KGF, Italy only gets 1-3 turns of a good income after that they are stuck at ~9-12.  UK and Russia most definitely can compete with Germany and Italy.

    @Lynxes:

    So, the two major strats for the Allies I think will be:
    KIF= all of US resources and most of UK goes vs. Africa and Italy, and UK devotes enough to ward off the fall of Karelia. UK builds Saf IC.
    Balanced KIF= US resources are divided between the above objective and building up a fleet in the Pacific that offensively distracts Japan and buys the Allies time to more effectively put the KIF strategy into place. UK as above.

    I agree with this.  I think the Allies can throw everything they have at Afr and the Italian fleet early with the intiention to kill the fleet and cripple Italy by rd 4.  After this the US has the freedom to confront Japan in the Pac if it wishes or just continue and try to actually take Rome or Berlin.

    @Lynxes:

    /bugoo

    In the '41 scenario, UK helps against Japan by sending troops over the Middle East to protect Caucasus, by landings in Algeria, builds in South Africa IC, or both.

    YES!!!
    Units that land in Alg (UK and/or US) in Rd 2, 3, 4 reach Trj in rds 5, 6, 7.  Meaning you can cut off Japan’s Southern route.  UK attacks/US finishes off.


  • Japan starts with atleast a 260+ army/ navy on the board…. its a moster. Were as the US after a good J1 should only have like 108+ IPC that can effect the Pacific.

    3 CV    14=42                  1 CV  =14             
    1 BB      20=20                  1  BB  =20
    1 CA      12=12                  4 Fit  = 40
    9 Fit      10= 90                3 DD  =24
    1 DD      8=8                    2 tran =14 
    4 Tran    7=28                  2 Bom =24

    18 Inf    3=54                    6 Inf  =18
    2  Art    4=8                      1 art  =4
    1  Arm  5=5

    = Monster  About 267          About  158
    Pacific theather.

    Yah, Japan is out of hand.
    They can make up the IPC income gap with the US by J2.
    And two transpots in J1 would help that alot because they could get their whole home force to china russia in J2
    Have fun stoppin this whale Ahab!!!


  • I think the Allies can throw everything they have at Afr and the Italian fleet early with the intiention to kill the fleet and cripple Italy by rd 4.  After this the US has the freedom to confront Japan in the Pac if it wishes or just continue and try to actually take Rome or Berlin.

    One caveat though: if Japan deploys its fleet aggressively vs. the West Coast, you really can’t wait since once your Pacific fleet is sunk it’s almost impossible to rebuild. You’ll be forced to build at least enough to defend yourself vs. a Jap carrier strike, but that doesn’t mean the basic strategy changes. You need a carrier and some auxiliary ships afloat off the West coast as a kernel of your Pacific fleet to have any chance of challenging Japan. (All this assuming abandoning the Pacific ocean is not your strategy.)


  • I still don’t see that Japan can be seriously challenged in the -41 map, NOs or no NOs doesn’t make any difference either.

  • Moderator

    @Lynxes:

    You need a carrier and some auxiliary ships afloat off the West coast as a kernel of your Pacific fleet to have any chance of challenging Japan. (All this assuming abandoning the Pacific ocean is not your strategy.)

    I will abandon, or at least make it look that way.  On US 1 the AC/DD either cover the UK trn (1 inf, 1 rt) and dd fleeing Aus or go to Sz 20 if it is safe from J air.

    I try to buy lots of ftrs so if I do have to go Pac I can just buy 1-2 AC with DD cover b/c I already have the ftrs available to land.

    A good counter (or deterent) to an early aggressive J fleet move toward the US is the early UK stack in Per.  Ind can be taken on J2, but UK has the ability to counter for 1-3 turns if Japan is only moving 1-2 inf there.  This usually forces Japan to make the full commitment and at least project strength with its AC/ftrs, buying the US the time it needs to set up in the Atlantic (rds 1-3).

    It is not that easy for Japan to get significant ground forces to Northern Russia, thru China, to India, and to Aus early on.  So you are usually only dealing with stacks of 2-3 inf for any particular area.  These can be countered by consolidated UK stacks in Per and a Russian stack in Novo (could move into China as needed).


  • Yes, Japan’s income of 60-65 is a lot of units, but those units won’t hit the front lines for another 4-5 turns.  So if Japan earns 60 in rd 3-4, the Allies don’t need to worry about those units until rd 7-8.  That is a ton of time for the Allies to cripple Italy and help Mos against Germany.

    I’m not saying that Japan can necessarily stop the Allies from crushing Germany and Italy because they’re cashing out high. What I’m saying is that, even though you’re right that Japan’s per turn income is comparable to previous versions, they will be in a stronger position to take on the Allies themselves by the time Germany and Italy fall. Its possible that the Japs could still be in a position to win even after Berlin falls. The “cost” of playing KGF, if you like, is higher in this edition; not because Japan makes relatively more per turn now, but because they accumulate more money/units over time while the Allies are in Europe.

    To be clear, I’m not advocating a KJF strategy. But, it may be more effective for the Allies (the US in particular) to not ignore Japan completely. Even a token force in the Pacific can work wonders at slowing down the Jap cash machine. There seems to be a sort of “diminishing returns” aspect in my view, where a couple extra units in Europe will help a little, but a couple extra units in the Pacific/Asia can help a lot.

    So I think a more balanced approach (one which still focuses on Europe) could be more effective than a pure KGF.


  • I have a similar experience as a previous poster; games where I’ve seen the Allies win were KGF.

    ~However~ in the games that were decisive Allied victories the US did not ignore Japan, they spent a portion of their IPC’s to harass Japan in the Pacific. How do you best do this as the US?

    Subs.

    and later in the game… subs + bombers.

    Just building 3 subs off the US west coast for the low price of $18 on US1 causes a serious headache for Japan. First, if Japan went for a US aggressive strategy on J1 that left their carriers deep in the Pacific, placing subs off the US west coast forces an immediate retreat. Aside from that scenario a couple of subs per turn changes the tactical situation in the Pacific dramatically. Japan can’t send transports around the pacific theater willy-nilly unescorted (unless they’re OK with sacrificing the transport… but this results in a net positive IPC trade for the US). Otherwise Japan has to keep their fleet consolidated into 2 (maybe 3) groups; meaning much less flexibility and slower expansion. Japan is also forced to build destroyers to counter subs, and destroyers cost more than subs so again this is a net IPC gain against Japan.

    In the end subs in the Pacific become a money-grinder for Japan. They have to spend $IPC to replace lost transports and build otherwise useless destroyers. Every $IPC spent by Japan to counter a US sub is an $IPC not being spent on land units into China/Russia. Meanwhile, the US still has plenty of $IPC leftover to send troops into the European theater and take down Germany.

    US subs seem like the most “bang for the buck” way to slow down Japan while the Allies methodically take Germany apart… my .02 ;)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I wouldn’t really know if Japan can be challenged in 1941 without NOs.

    With NO’s, America can easily close the financial gap with Japan and even surpass Japan production wise with minimal effort from England and Russia. I’ve done it a number of times.

    The trick is to realize submarines for a useless unit in naval combat.  You might have a good offensive force with those 12-20 submarines, but the other guy with 9-15 Destroyers (same cost) has a better defense and has units to block your attack with so he can move into range of your fleet forcing you to retreat or go on the defense (making those 12-20 submarines almost completely useless.)

    I love nothing more as Japan or America than seeing my opponent putting submarines in the water because I know I can manipulate the situation to give me the edge no matter what happens.  You can’t block with submarines, so I can ignore any submarines you have and you cannot run submarines past my destroyers on picket duty, so I can block your fleet to my advantage.

    Of course, this assumes both sides have battleship(s), carrier(s) and fighters, maybe even a cruiser or cruisers as well. (Though, I find Cruisers of limited utility.  They seem good for England who is strapped for cash early on, but not so good for America and Japan who either want the two hit ability of battleships or the multiple units of Destroyers.)


  • @Cmdr:

    I love nothing more as Japan or America than seeing my opponent putting submarines in the water because I know I can manipulate the situation to give me the edge no matter what happens.  You can’t block with submarines, so I can ignore any submarines you have and you cannot run submarines past my destroyers on picket duty, so I can block your fleet to my advantage.

    As Japan if you spend enough time and $IPC to build an entire “picket line” of destroyers to counter a handful of US subs then the subs have done their job and the US has won that battle.

    The point of the US throwing subs into the Pacific theater is not to take down the Japanese navy; it’s three things:

    1. force Japan’s ships into a defensive/consolidated posture which is less flexible on offense and more importantly slower to expand.
    2. force Japan to spend $IPC on something other than the land war in Asia
    3. do #1 and #2 as cheaply as possible and make it cost more for Japan than it costs the US

  • In a typical J1, Japan will have about 40 ipc production at the end of J1, using NOs. Without NOs it will then be ca. 30 ipc.

    So at at the end of J1 regardless of NOs, Japan will be at the same production level as the US.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    By the time this occurs Afr and the Italian fleet should be in the process of being cleared, so at this point the US can freely go after or defend against Japan.  A proper US shuck starts in Wus on turn 1 anyway and slowly builds up to 8-10 units (for 4-5 trns to go to Alg).  I just don’t think that it is an inviting target for Japan, to see 8 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wcan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wus.  So the US pulls back one turn and stacks 2 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 14 inf in Wcan, 8 inf, 4 arm in Wus.  Is this a good target for Japan?

    Yep, this is a pretty good target. You forget the massive AC fleet Japan startsand the buys fron J1: 6/7 trannies (12/14 land units) plus 6 fighters from ACs can beat any of wusa or wcan. You probably will retreat to wusa and left wcan empty better, but you are losing 1 round at least, and one round is all Italy needs to keep Africa. And nothing prevents Japan landings in Alaska

  • Moderator

    But how early can you do that?
    Japan also has build limit of 8, so at some point you’ll need at least 2 ICs.  Where do those get placed and when?

    12-14 units is 36-42 ipc which is more than half J’s income and that is if they buy inf only.

    I like a 2 trn J1 buy, but that is not enough to threaten the US early on, considering Japan still has to send at least 1 trn to Aus.  Is Japan threatening India on J2?

    The cost of 2 ICs and say 4 trns is 58 ipc.  That is essentially all of J1 cash (17) and J2 (~40-42 ipc) spent on non-attacking, non-territory holding units.

    I understand China is weak, but they aren’t that weak that they won’t chew up the initial burst of Japanese Asia units, esp when reinforced by a few Russians.

    How do you push through India/Per with enough force to prevent a counter from the Allies in Cauc?

    You also have to contend with Russia as you approach Novo and Russia can lose Bury, Sfe, Stc, Eve and Yak but make up for it with Fin and Nor.  Russia routinely earns mid 30’s to 40’s in a KGF type game.

    I just thought of this, which may help, I’m currently playing a KGF game and here is the cash earned earned so far.

    (Cash on hand at the end of each rd)
    Country:  Rd 1 - Rd 2 - Rd 3 - Rd 4

    Ger:  45 - 43 - 38- 39
    Jap:  42 - 55 - 60 - 65
    Ita:  17 - 19 - 12 - 9

    Tot:  104 - 117 - 110 - 113

    Rus:  34 - 39 - 49 - 48
    UK:  40 - 29 - 26 - 31
    US:  48 - 48 - 48 - 54

    Tot:  122 - 116 - 123 - 133

    Now, in this game Japan is going after Moscow, Russia is holding her own, so I don’t see how Russia couldn’t hold her own if Japan is committing ~ 40 ipc to Ala/Wcan.  The Allies can earn as much or more then the Axis in each rd.

    Also, if the argument is the US needs to spend on the Pac, then I don’t see much difference in spending the 40-48 ipc on ground troops to fight in Ala/Wcan compared to the trns/subs/dd etc plus ground troops to fight at Sea and take islands.  At least if you are fighting in Ala/Wcan you didn’t have to waste money on ships and you got to aid Europe for 3-4 turns.


  • J1 IC to FIC, J2 IC to eastindies or J3 to india. i lreally like the FIC IC. i can produce AC / BB / CA here if i must without needing to protect them  from air in early rounds

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Umgar:

    I think you misunderstand.

    America must first build enough submarines to constitute a threat.  They then must have a significant force of these submarines scattered around in half a dozen sea zones in order to encourage Japan to put destroyers all over the place.

    In reality, America would have maybe two piles of submarines 3 territories away. (Any closer and Japan would sink them.)  Or America would have a pile of submarines protected by a line of destroyers.

    In either case, it would only take one, two or three Japanese destroyers to successfully block those submarines from attacking the fleet.  However, the Americans wouldn’t be able to just kill a destroyer and leave her submarines there because the attacking Japanese fleet would obliterate them without significant effort.

    Basically, if America is going 100% submarines (or close) as I see advocated by a few people here and there, they’ll just end up shooting themselves in the foot without adversely affecting Japan at all.

    Submarines will end up costing the United States significantly more than a couple of destroyers for Japan.  This is because the fighters Japan is using to sink those submarines (at the cost of a destroyer or two) is negligent given the fact those same fighters can move inland again to assist against Russia and China.


    I agree with DM, Japan will need at least two, maybe more ICs.

    I like Manchuria for the first one because if you lose it, it is worthless. (China does not need an IC and can’t use it anyway.)  However, it is a 3 IPC territory meaning you can build 3-5 units there (if you have the tech.)

    For the second, I like FIC because it’s pretty darn safe and it’s significantly further inland from Japan and Manchuria.

    Then I also like one in Burma and later one in India.  I just like the idea of Japan not needing to build anything on Japan and not needing transports at all.  I feel more flexible.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    I understand China is weak, but they aren’t that weak that they won’t chew up the initial burst of Japanese Asia units, esp when reinforced by a few Russians.

    Japan should kill China J1, and in one round in most of battles. China starts with a crappy total of 4 inf, 1 fig and pops 1 last inf in round 1. Let’s say the fig survives the 1st round of attack, this means 5 defenses with infs, 2 with the fig -> usually 18 defense points -> 3 loses . Japan starts with 9 infs in mainland plus probably 2 more from some trannie. China will not do any real damage to Japan unless you make the error of not doing a total attack against them J1 OR crappy luck

    I don’t know how are soviets playing in your game, but if they are winning 48-49 two rounds, it means they have the 2nd NO, and there is no way of soviets taking it so soon but bad axis play or crappiest dices. Send soviet units to China and USSR will have a very hard time against germans

    I still don’t think KGF is the way, west axis is too strong even if they lost Africa, Japan is too powerful and USA will not send enough aid to Europe if Japan attacks America, that is in fact nearer from Japan than Moscow

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I agree with Func.  In 1941 there should not be more than 1 Chinese infantry left on the board.  Killing the fighter is paramount!  (I’ve toyed with letting it live in the hopes of killing it later, it never works out well for me.)

  • Moderator

    That’s not entirely true.  While they can kill most of China’s units on J1 it still takes 3 turns to get through all of China.  The point is if Japan sends its 9 inf after China in round 1 (which is should), it will likely lose 3.  1 inf lost in 3 or 4 ter.  I forget off hand how many they can attack.  But 3 inf vs. 1 inf is a should win battle, but odds are decent, esp if it goes multiple rds to lose 1 inf.  So Japan is down to 6 inf, and China is at 3 (they’ll likely get to place 2 on US-Chi 1).  China can retreat and/or picket another 2-3 ter.  I like to retreat all inf but it doesn’t matter.  The point is by time Japan gets its initial inf through China (on J3) they are down to 3-5 inf.  THIS IS COUNTERABLE BY RUSSIA, who retreated it’s 9 Eastern inf back to Novo.  Goodbye J inf and welcome back China.  This is why Japan needs a steady flow of inf behind the initial thrust.  The 9 starting inf are enough to clear and kill China but not nearly enough to enter Kaz/Novo.  Russia will eat them alive.  Japanese reinforcements need to land (or be placed at an IC) in Asia in Rd 2 otherwise there is a gap in Japan’s defense.

    I’m not arguing that China can’t be killed or that they are somehow strong, I’m just saying that they can cut down Japan’s starting inf.

    Here’s another likely scenerio.  Japan is doing its normal damage to China and China retreats/places its last inf in Chi (last China ter) boarding Novo.  Now Russia takes the inf that started in Yak/Stc/Bury (when avail) retreats to Novo then reinforces the China inf in Chi.  So you end up with a mixed stack of 8 inf.  Can 6 Jap inf win?  No.  They need ftr help.  Well they may not have the ftrs if they are off taking Aus or in Sz 62, or off the coast of Ind, or harassing HI or Ala.

    I think people assume that Japan just walks through Asia, and yes that is true to an extent, but it doesn’t mean they don’t run into resistance as they approach Mos or Persia.  Russia with 2-3 inf out East isn’t strong, but if they put all those inf into Novo or Kaz and all of a sudden have 10 inf, then that is a different story.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, they cut down Japan’s starting infantry, but that’s not a huge deal since Japan is earning so much.

    China itself should be a non-entity before China Round 1.

    Japan Round 1, the way I do it, leaves China with 1 Infantry and 4 Territories.  So at the end of China 1 they have 3 Infantry
    Japan Round 2, if China put their infantry in the way of advancing forces - and most players do, should reduce China to 0 Infantry and 1 Territory.  So at the end of China 2 they have 0 Infantry and 1 Territory.

    In other words, after Japan 2, there is no China.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 10
  • 9
  • 28
  • 28
  • 5
  • 13
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts