I have to concur with the others who have posted. A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go. If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia. While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units. Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia). Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too). That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia. So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it. If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about. YAKUT is the key for Japan. Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces. The drain on Russia: defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support. And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)
Need hints for how to play Japan
-
Hi I almost always play with Japan but i’m loosing more often then I win :-(. I’m going to tell what most commonly happens. I always attack the US fleet at Pearl (J1) and I always win that attack :-D but the US can take that and they always kill my fleet of in the end (my brother commonly plays the US and he spams naval units the first few turns), nomatter what i do I always lose my fleet in the end may it be US turn 4,6 or 8 :oops:. That leads to my bridging trans getting sunk 1 or 2 turns later. On the mainland i always build a IC in J1 or J2 (the territory with only have enemy borders to China) and then a few turns later i try to have a IC in India as well. Then I mostly find myself wanting more IPC but the US fleet commonly stops me from taking aus and nz so i go for Africa or more often USSR from south and from China (cus i often take US China in J2 :-P). The problem is that US fleet win = loss of Japan islands at least when I’m playing with my brother and our friends. They goes like Japan IPC NOM NOM NOM. Then Axis kinda losses cus when we play USSR, UK and with some help with a US bommber here and there kick German butt :cry:.
Now i’d like to know if there relay is a way to dispose of the naval opposition in the Pacific cus well me and my friends have only played A&A for a few months so I may have missed something :wink:. I do wonder however if Japan even can win the seas against an US player that always focuses on building naval units (BS’s and DD’s) early on before he goes to Africa or Norway. We Don’t play with any special strategical rules of any kind cus we did not get any of those when we bought our A&A.
I did however read a few threads in this forum before I chose to ask for hints in here. Do that Alaska attack approach really works?? Is not that suicidal??? or is it ok to sacrifice a inf hare and there to disrupt enemy IPC? On second thought I guess it is worth it :roll:.
Anyway i’m great full for any hints you can give me but keep in mind that not any of my friends i play with nor myself have played this for long. We are actually Warhammer players that like to play something else now and then for a change but we kinda got stuck whit this great game 8-).
-
-
Well thanks it looks nice so i’l start reading those right now.
-
Read the essays, but I would say the following:
Forget any IC’s, two transports cost the same but can deliver more infantry with added flexibility and some defensive capability (and cannot be strat bombed). Its difficult to argue that ICs are beneficial to anyone though it can be used in conjunction with some strategic ideas…
As Japan you should have the number of transports necessary to ship a full complement of infantry from the main islands each round. That, along with at least one capital ship (BB or CV) will make it too costly for the allies to attack your navy…a destroyed fighter will cost them 12 ipcs compared to a sunk transport costing only 8 ipcs.
That said, the game is not even and with evenly matched players who have some experience the allies should win most of the time (90%). So don’t worry if you lose, you really should expect it as the axis.
-
If your opponent is buying DD’s with the USA it is unlikely you are playing 2nd edition. You should post on the correct forum to make sure you are receiving the best advice.
Suggested Topics
