E.Europe as the territory, not as a whole
Let me rephrase: Allies control E. Europe, they control the entire Eastern front and deny its income to Germany and secure it to themselves. Let Japan have Africa (and divert units away from Russia).
Japan tactics
-
I’m guessing the key point that has remained unspoken is that in a lot of games I typically plan to send Japan’s fighters to Ukraine on J2 to set Germany up for a forward position against Russia, but that Hobbes’ anti-KJF plan calls for Japan’s fighters to remain near the Asian coast. I don’t think I’ve mentioned that part of my plan in so many words, nor do I think Hobbes has said as much for his plan in so many words. But I think that would completely explain the discrepancies in theory and thought.
My Japanese sub defense is like a moving crap game that’s trying not to get busted by the cops. Japan’s transport routes to Asia shift; its ground forces shift, its navy shifts, its air force shifts, constantly everything’s running all over the place, and I do mean constantly. Europe, Asia, all over the place. The “cops” are superior Allied forces that keep trying to run Japan’s inferior forces down. Although Japan’s forces are inferior overall, Japan compensates with mobility. Japan uses its starting battleships and carriers to defend against the Allies’ “long arm of the law” (i.e. air power), while keeping its main fleet out of the main attack power of US’s fleet. (It’s a typical Bunny thing, duck and weave, duck and weave)
A fixed sea zone 60 defense for Japan is like a craps game on an Indian reservation. The entire mentality is different; instead of Japan running all over the place, Japan stands in one place and uses a lot of armed security guards. Japan is the cops here, they are the superior force. (It’s sort of how I picture Hobbes’ typical game. He just sort of punches you in the face; you can try to duck and weave, but he just takes a step forward and keeps punching you until you cry for momma.)
If I were NOT sending fighters to Europe on J2, I can easily see how Jap fighters at sea zone 60 and even bombers would indeed work far better. (But I do usually send fighters to Europe.)
-
@Bunnies:
I’m guessing the key point that has remained unspoken is that in a lot of games I typically plan to send Japan’s fighters to Ukraine on J2 to set Germany up for a forward position against Russia, but that Hobbes’ anti-KJF plan calls for Japan’s fighters to remain near the Asian coast. I don’t think I’ve mentioned that part of my plan in so many words, nor do I think Hobbes has said as much for his plan in so many words. But I think that would completely explain the discrepancies in theory and thought.
My Japanese sub defense is like a moving crap game that’s trying not to get busted by the cops. Japan’s transport routes to Asia shift; its ground forces shift, its navy shifts, its air force shifts, constantly everything’s running all over the place, and I do mean constantly. Europe, Asia, all over the place. The “cops” are superior Allied forces that keep trying to run Japan’s inferior forces down. Although Japan’s forces are inferior overall, Japan compensates with mobility. Japan uses its starting battleships and carriers to defend against the Allies’ “long arm of the law” (i.e. air power), while keeping its main fleet out of the main attack power of US’s fleet. (It’s a typical Bunny thing, duck and weave, duck and weave)
A fixed sea zone 60 defense for Japan is like a craps game on an Indian reservation. The entire mentality is different; instead of Japan running all over the place, Japan stands in one place and uses a lot of armed security guards. Japan is the cops here, they are the superior force. (It’s sort of how I picture Hobbes’ typical game. He just sort of punches you in the face; you can try to duck and weave, but he just takes a step forward and keeps punching you until you cry for momma.)
If I were NOT sending fighters to Europe on J2, I can easily see how Jap fighters at sea zone 60 and even bombers would indeed work far better. (But I do usually send fighters to Europe.)
I’d say I have a cops attitude regardless of the country I’m playing but that’s another matter ;)
-
Sending fighters to Europe I think is/should be a default move for Japan only to be seriously modified by a serious KJF, in that case Japan really can’t afford to fight off the US IPC investment while sending fighters away to Europe.
Hobbes, again the consideration of Japanes subs on defense is like considering carriers to be useless because spending 70 IPC on 5 carriers is a crappy way to spend money for defense versus 60 IPC on 3 battleships. While true that 3 battleships out fights 5 carriers, it ought not be a serious consideration as you are never going to find 5 carriers sitting there with no fighters. Japanese subs either fight or run. If they defend its because the battlecalculator says the US has <15% chance of winning the battle/IPC exchange so again, its not going to happen.
Its a matter of marginal utility in my way of thinking. With the starting Japanese fleet you add 3 fighters for the 8 fighter/2 CV tactic. You need 1 DD for sure, you can make a decent argument for a second (1 to block and 1 to run) but not really a third and certainly not a forth. You can make a good argument for adding a few more bombers. The marginal utility of going from 0 to 1 bomber is huge. Going from 1 to 2 is less and 2 to 3 is less again. I think beyond 3-4 bombers your marginal utility is low enough to look elsewhere. Now for subs, I think you get more marginal utility from 30 IPC by adding 5 subs versus 3 fighters when you go from 0 subs to 5 subs and you already have 8 fighters. Now at this point its getting close to the time you can no longer project enough power to keep the US fleet away. You either can keep them away or you run, I don’t ever see sitting when there is a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. I think the US can afford to chance a 40% success in an offensive all out fleet battle victory more than Japan can chance a 60% success in a defensive victory. If you can’t sit and take the punch you run duck and weave just out of reach. Moreover, when thinking of offense you factor in 8 fighters for your 2 CVs and your bombers, the moment you plan on defense you already lose 50-70% of your punch.
-
Sending fighters to Europe I think is/should be a default move for Japan only to be seriously modified by a serious KJF, in that case Japan really can’t afford to fight off the US IPC investment while sending fighters away to Europe.
Hobbes, again the consideration of Japanes subs on defense is like considering carriers to be useless because spending 70 IPC on 5 carriers is a crappy way to spend money for defense versus 60 IPC on 3 battleships. While true that 3 battleships out fights 5 carriers, it ought not be a serious consideration as you are never going to find 5 carriers sitting there with no fighters. Japanese subs either fight or run. If they defend its because the battlecalculator says the US has <15% chance of winning the battle/IPC exchange so again, its not going to happen.
There’s 2 meanings to the phrasing ‘subs on defense’, probably it would be easier to look at each one separately
- Tactical, meaning subs roll at 1 at defense and the attacker can prevent them being used as casualties by the defender (only planes, or no destroyer brought along - they can still be taken as casualties but they won’t protect the surface fleet from the planes). So yes, you’ll definitely avoid placing yourself on a position where you have to rely 100% on them to defeat an attack - which brings back the argument of a balanced mix of units, instead of focusing on planes/subs/surface ships.
- Operational, meaning the ability to prevent and/or destroy enemy advances. And here planes are still the kings of the board, both in range and versability - if Japan starts building mainly fighters and the US mainly subs then Japan has the advantage because its airforce gives it the ability to sink the surface ships and transports without having to worry about the subs or US destroyer blockers. Split Japan’s fleet between SZ60 and Philippines/Borneo so that you can protect SZ60 while at the same time being able to have some ships/subs ready to pounce on the US if it lands on Solomon and the longer you keep this going the better it is for the Axis. Also, when the US finally is able to move closer to Japan you can pull back those fighters to Asia or Japan itself.
Its a matter of marginal utility in my way of thinking. With the starting Japanese fleet you add 3 fighters for the 8 fighter/2 CV tactic. You need 1 DD for sure, you can make a decent argument for a second (1 to block and 1 to run) but not really a third and certainly not a forth. You can make a good argument for adding a few more bombers. The marginal utility of going from 0 to 1 bomber is huge. Going from 1 to 2 is less and 2 to 3 is less again. I think beyond 3-4 bombers your marginal utility is low enough to look elsewhere. Now for subs, I think you get more marginal utility from 30 IPC by adding 5 subs versus 3 fighters when you go from 0 subs to 5 subs and you already have 8 fighters. Now at this point its getting close to the time you can no longer project enough power to keep the US fleet away. You either can keep them away or you run, I don’t ever see sitting when there is a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. I think the US can afford to chance a 40% success in an offensive all out fleet battle victory more than Japan can chance a 60% success in a defensive victory. If you can’t sit and take the punch you run duck and weave just out of reach. Moreover, when thinking of offense you factor in 8 fighters for your 2 CVs and your bombers, the moment you plan on defense you already lose 50-70% of your punch.
Again the point for a mix of units - I agree that the marginal utility increases the most when you go from 0 to 1 (and I like to have 1 or 2 subs around to take out isolated targets like DD blockers). I’m not sure about the marginal utility of 5 subs being more useful than 3 fighters if you already have 8 fighters - it depend a lot on the situation on the board.
-
Great post Bunnies.
Regarding a stack fighters in FIC - UK actually has a shot at them. Typically they can have 1 bom 1 fig and 2 or 3 inf from India against a stack of 3-4 fighters in FIC.
This is asuming FIC was not supported with Japanese infantry.
In this case I find it very tempting as UK, to try to hit the fighter stack (especially if it is only 3 figs) and hope to take out a couple of figs.
Especially if Germany is relying on reinforcements in Ukraine.
I realize it is a bit of a gamble, but the reward and the advantage of being able to retreat as the attacker makes it worth it, especially if Axis is of to a too good start.
If Germany missed badly in Ukraine, Egypt or sz2, then I would probably use my UK planes elsewhere (hit med battleship f.i.)The odds for 1 round of combat 2 inf 1 fig 1 bom against 3 fig:
Jap loses:
0 fig: 11%
1 fig: 40%
2 fig: 35%
3 fig: 13%UK loses:
0 inf: 3%
1 inf: 22%
2 inf: 45%
2 inf + fig: 31% -
What I didn’t write was that I assumed in most situations that UK did not stack India. Of course it is stupid for Japan to stack lone fighters in the range of a UK infantry/air counter. If UK did stack India, then the Axis just have to change plans. Of course, there is always the possibility of putting 2 infantry from Phillipines on top of the fighter stack, and a “normal” number of fighters on French Indochina should be more like four or five than three. And Japan doesn’t HAVE to hit China with 100% of its infantry in Asia. But I digress; more on the UK India stack in a second.
The typical UK move to counter an early threatened Germany/Japan stack in Ukraine is UK attacking French Indochina (or at least, I would consider it typical, even though I hardly ever see it, and with good reason, because it forgoes Africa.) But if Germany and Japan see that UK controls French Indochina at the end of UK1, they can adjust. It’s not like Germany stacks Ukraine then UK suddenly pulls a brilliant counter that leaves Germany holding its nuts in its hand, waiting to get the hell smacked out of it by Russia. Japan sets up the reinforcement position FIRST, then Germany commits its forces. If Japan can’t set up the reinforcement, Germany doesn’t commit its forces to Ukraine, probably hitting Karelia instead. So the Allies will probably end up with fast losses in Africa and a fortified German position in Karelia, instead of a fortified German/Japanese position in Ukraine, which is also decently messy for the Allies. (Bunnies ducks and weaves, ducks and weaves)
Re: UK stacking India - stacking India with UK typically leads to loss of control of the Suez Canal on G2, with no UK counter possible, leading to possible Japanese fleet movement through the Suez to join the German Mediterranean fleet. Once that happens, Germany should dominate Africa. Oh, there are tradeoffs of course. Japan has slower development against India, Germany has slower development in Europe. But the key is that Germany can build on local superiority of force in Africa, if it keeps building up its ground there and keeps air in Europe in range. Germany seems to have its forces in Africa cut off, but they can regain life in Persia, where they are joined by the Japanese, for pressure against Caucasus.
There are a bunch of Allied counters, but all of them are at least moderately risky or resource/time consuming. Which is not to say those Allied counters are not worth considering! But it’s not like UK stacking India is clearly superior to UK not stacking India.
The key point, I’d say is ducking and weaving. If your opponent lines up a strong counter against something, that inevitably involves either risk or weaknesses elsewhere. If it’s weaknesses elsewhere, you go after those weaknesses where you can’t be powerfully countered, instead of lining yourself up where you can be powerfully countered. If it’s risk, well, hopefully your opponent won’t get lucky. You can’t protect yourself from all risks. If you play conservatively and try to deny your opponent any opportunities, that will inevitably lead to retreat, loss of territory, loss of income, your opponents’ gain of income, and a tougher long term position.
-
(I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).
Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?
Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?
Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).
-
(I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).
Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?
Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?
Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).
If India has 2 inf and 1 AA Gun I’d attack it if:
- The Soviets can’t retake India by blitzing armor from Caucasus and/or the J transport on SZ drops 1 inf, 1 arm on Indochina during non-combat
- The Allies arent’ pressuring J too hard. If Japan starts its turn with 6 Soviet inf on Buryatia and the UK fleet all round then India drops down my list of targets. I’d rather make sure I take China (or Buryatia or attack SZ52 or clear SZ37 of UK ships) than taking India.
Preventing the UK from retaking Egypt on UK2 is usually better than going after India because as Japan you need to clear out the UK forces on the Middle East/Asia as quickly as possible since they are the ones that can do the most damage to Japan (when combined with the US/Russia)
-
(I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).
Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?
Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?
Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).
Next time post your own topic. It’s better for you and better for the thread, rather than going off topic.
The answer to your question hardly has anything to do with Japan anyways. It is really a question about the Allies, and I don’t mean that just because you’re asking a question about UK.
I already actually posted on the subject of India infantry some time ago, but sadly it was not clearly stated. Not clearly stated, much like you would think there would be clearly stated signs on your Droid Razr phone. “Do not use to cut meat and vegetables”. I mean, look at those commercials, you would think those phones had gosu knife functionality. You can do so many other things with your phone - watch movies, listen to music, play video games, send threatening emails to your bookie - would some simple functionality in the kitchen be too much to ask for? I mean, look at those commercials, seriously. But anyways dinner is absolutely ruined, I tell you. Everything’s mashed all to hell, and that’s not how you make beef Wellington. Now if they would just clearly state that those phones are not to be used for meat and vegetables, things would be so simple. But they didn’t say that. Now who’s going off topic? I can threadjack anyone, even myself. :evil:
Leaving infantry on India at end of UK1 is almost always wrong. The more you leave on there, the worse it usually is. There are specific exceptions - there are almost always exceptions - but if you have any question about whether or not a specific case is an exception, then it isn’t an exception for you, because anyone asking such a question wouldn’t know how to follow through anyways.
Why is the question of UK infantry on India a question for the Allies instead of the Axis? How to put this. Let’s say you’re a captain of a team of soccer players. Now let’s say you come up with some strategy that involves leaving your goal completely undefended (say everyone on your team just lays down) when the opposing team has the ball. If the other team has any sort of skill, they’re just going to score, and not worry too much about looking a gift horse in the mouth.
So you understand, it isn’t a question of how Japan and Germany will respond to a UK1 India stack, as much of it is a question of how badly they will hurt the Allies, and why the Allies would consider a UK1 India stack in the first place. Typically, the Axis will hurt the Allies rather a lot, so the Allies had better have some good reason for laying down on the job.
Like, let’s say you’re that soccer coach, and everyone’s laying down, and your opponent’s about to try to score a goal, when suddenly one meter tall aliens in flying saucers appear and vaporize everyone taller than they are. Since your whole team is laying down, the aliens ignore them. But the opposing team is vaporized. So you win!
(Again, that explanation of exceptions - clearly this would be such an exception. But if you didn’t know of an impending alien attack, then your strategy of laying down suddenly would probably not work so well, you see?)
-
@Bunnies:
(I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).
Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?
Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?
Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).
Next time post your own topic. It’s better for you and better for the thread, rather than going off topic.
The answer to your question hardly has anything to do with Japan anyways. It is really a question about the Allies, and I don’t mean that just because you’re asking a question about UK.
The underlying question is, should Japan attack India at J1 if there’s only 2 inf and 1 AA Gun.
Leaving infantry on India at end of UK1 is almost always wrong. The more you leave on there, the worse it usually is.
The mistake that the Allies need to avoid is to allow Japan to destroy those inf on J1 and capture the AA Gun, without any kind of retribution.
Usually the best idea is to place 2 Russian armor in Caucasus - if the Japanese risk going after India (and the AA Gun can ruin any attack) then the Russians can retake it and meanwhile the Japanese have been delayed on the Indian corridor.
Another possibility is to evacuate India to Persia and then retake it. It is perfectly valid but at the same time, if the UK keeps India then Japan will have more targets to hit - the more attacks it makes, the bigger the possibility that one of them will fail. Also, if the UK is placing itself to sink the German Med fleet on SZ15 on UK2 then most likely you won’t have a plane available to help those inf on Persia retake India.
Suggested Topics
