Check this link out mate:
Japan Strat?
-
I agree with Kidhorn:
@Kidhorn:
Whether or not it’s better to buy transports or and IC depends on what you plan to attack with. If you plan on attacking with tanks, which I think is the way to go, it’s cheaper to place an IC. An IC costs 15 and allows 3 tanks a turn while 2 transports will cost 16 and allow 2 tanks a turn. Plus the IC will place the tanks closer to combat. Why is it better to attack with tanks? For 5 you get a 3 as opposed to spending 6 on two ones. It’s more economical. Tanks defend the same as infantry, but Japan isn’t in danger of being attacked and you can defend with fighters. Also tanks can move twice as far which leads to a faster conquering of territory, which means more to spend and less for the allies to spend.
I think Japan should definately take out Pearl Harbor. They can do so with little loss and it will take the US at least 2 turns to rebuild what they lost.
I like having the I.C. in Asia A.S.A.P. and still using the transports to bring over additional units. Producing 3 tanks from Asia per turn and what ever else possible from Japan = Russia will fall soon (unless Germany does first). I agree with the Pearl Harbor move as well … Japan should strike and strike fast!
Mista Biggs 8)
-
How you play Japan depends on whether your opponent builds an India IC. If they do, control of Burma is the key to the defense of India, since if the UK controls Burma they can attack Kwantung and China with newly produced tanks and force you to keep contesting territories that don’t even border India. If Japan controls Burma with anough infantry that Japan can’t take it, then Britain is on the defensive and can’t attack out of India for fear of it being taken by the ever-expanding sea of Japanese infantry. That’s why it’s usually a big mistake to send too many ships to Hawaii. If you do, it won’t be until turn 3 that you can finally send transports to Burma. Instead you should be covering the 2 transports as they land 4 infantry in Burma on turn 1. If you then build 2 more transports you can have 2 groups of transports going back and forth between Burma and Manchuria alternately unloading in both territories and adding more transports as you can afford them. Burma gets at least 4 inf per turn to India’s 3 armor. And one more thing, be usre that you don’t let any stray planes get a shot at your transports.
If there’s no India IC, first concentrate on Manchuria for the first turn to prepare to push the Russians back to Moscow. They’ll be your major resistance and you’ll need to keep a lid on them.
ALso, you’ll be fighting lots of small battles. Be sure to use your superior airforce to make sure that the allies take more casualties than you in every engagement, especially Russia. Garmany will appreciate it when Russian troops have to start leaving Karalia for the eastern front.
Then finally, keep an eye on the US. If you’re playing 3rd edition (W. Canada doesn’t border the Atlantic), the W. US will be lightly defended and you can cause a lot of panic and messed-up plans by taking Hawaii with a reasonable number of infantry and ships.
-
I want to address this post in 2 parts.
1st:
How you play Japan depends on whether your opponent builds an India IC. If they do, control of Burma is the key to the defense of India, since if the UK controls Burma they can attack Kwantung and China with newly produced tanks and force you to keep contesting territories that don’t even border India. If Japan controls Burma with anough infantry that Japan can’t take it, then Britain is on the defensive and can’t attack out of India for fear of it being taken by the ever-expanding sea of Japanese infantry.
It doesn’t matter if U.K. builds an I.C. in India or not. Japan should always take India on their first turn. It is very important that Japan knocks out U.K.'s plane. If U.K. built an I.C. on their first turn – than it’s just an added bonus for Japan. Japan should set up shop in Burma after turn 1.
Japan should build an I.C. in Burma (plus a transport) on turn 1 … it doesn’t matter whether U.K. built an I.C. in India or not – here’s why:
If U.K. did build an I.C. in India … Japan should still build an I.C. in Burma since the India I.C. will most likely be taken back on U.S.A.'s first turn. Even though Japan will easily retake India on Japan’s 2nd turn … it won’t be able to start producing out of India until turn 3. So, I suggest building an I.C. in Burma no matter what. This will allow three tanks per turn from Burma, plus whatever else from Japan … and starting turn 3 – 3 more tanks from the India I.C. (if U.K. bought one on turn 1).
Turn 2 – Japan should finish off the U.S.A. forces in Asia. Russia will be eliminated soon thereafter!
2nd:
That’s why it’s usually a big mistake to send too many ships to Hawaii. If you do, it won’t be until turn 3 that you can finally send transports to Burma. Instead you should be covering the 2 transports as they land 4 infantry in Burma on turn 1. If you then build 2 more transports you can have 2 groups of transports going back and forth between Burma and Manchuria alternately unloading in both territories and adding more transports as you can afford them. Burma gets at least 4 inf per turn to India’s 3 armor. And one more thing, be usre that you don’t let any stray planes get a shot at your transports.
All though it is not necessary … I think that Japan should move all of it’s navy (except the transport from the Phillipines) to Hawaii along with the fighter (on carrier) and perhaps the bomber if not needed Asia. It is important to destroy U.S.A.'s carrier. It is also important that you bring all that you can so that U.S.A.'s chances of destroying the Japanese fleet are reduced. The most that U.S.A. could retailiate with is the battleship, the transport, 2 fighters and the bomber. Japan should have both battleships, the carrier and the fighter left. If the U.S.A. does attack the remaining Japanese fleet … the battle could go either way, but whatever happens – both forces will be entirely demolished. This will leave the U.S.A. with NO airforce and NO navy (except for what they newly purchased). Japan will have NO navy, but they really won’t need one for at least 2-3 turns. By then Japan will be making as much money as the U.S.A. and Germany won’t have to worry about the U.S.A. for a LONG time (and by then it’ll be too LATE … Russia will be OUT of the game).
Mista Biggs 8)
-
its important for japan to draw the u.s.a into a false sence of security and let it biuld up its air force and navy whilsed japan prayes lady luck will be on her side and build a superior navy by building a battle ship each turn in doing this u.s.a will send its mighty force to hawiee and that is where you want them because if japan saves its fighters and go in with its fleet of battle ships that it has just built over the last turns asisted by them into the stronghold it will surley crush the usa fleet and then will march on to washington dont worry about the asian front your bomber will take care of that :wink: :wink: belive me it works i was the player with usa :x :x
-
its important for japan to draw the u.s.a into a false sence of security and let it biuld up its air force and navy whilsed japan prayes lady luck will be on her side and build a superior navy by building a battle ship each turn in doing this u.s.a will send its mighty force to hawiee and that is where you want them because if japan saves its fighters and go in with its fleet of battle ships that it has just built over the last turns asisted by them into the stronghold it will surley crush the usa fleet and then will march on to washington dont worry about the asian front your bomber will take care of that :wink: :wink: belive me it works i was the player with usa :x :x
punctuation helps.
The strategy itself needs the US build a pacific. Usually, if that happens (or the US builds too much air force), then the Axis have won. Otherwise, with Japan spending 24 IPCs on useless things each turn, it is open again.
If i see japan building BBs each turn, i would just start the shuck-shuck from 'Frisco and that’s it. Let them have Hawaii if they want.Don’t worry about the aisan front? One bomber?
teheheee -
@F_alk:
If i see japan building BBs each turn, i would just start the shuck-shuck from 'Frisco and that’s it. Let them have Hawaii if they want.
Don’t worry about the aisan front? One bomber?
teheheeeI agree with F_alk – if Japan is building BBs each turn, I would use the shuck-shuck … but, I would use it in the Atlantic instead of the Pacific. I might would purchase a sub or so every turn IF I wanted to attack Japan’s fleet (being that the subs have the “first hit” capability).
OR – If the U.S. wants to spend = I.P.C.'s on it’s Pacific fleet as Japan does (in this situation 24 I.P.C.'s), then 3 subs for U.S.A. to Japan’s 1 BB. I would rather have the subs personally. More than likely 1 of the subs will hit and the dead unit is removed WITHOUT getting to shot back.
Not to mention – Japan needs to use it’s money on attacking Russia.
Mista Biggs 8)
-
@Kidhorn:
If you plan on attacking with tanks, which I think is the way to go, it’s cheaper to place an IC. An IC costs 15 and allows 3 tanks a turn while 2 transports will cost 16 and allow 2 tanks a turn. Plus the IC will place the tanks closer to combat. Why is it better to attack with tanks? For 5 you get a 3 as opposed to spending 6 on two ones. It’s more economical. Tanks defend the same as infantry, but Japan isn’t in danger of being attacked and you can defend with fighters. Also tanks can move twice as far which leads to a faster conquering of territory, which means more to spend and less for the allies to spend.
Too many tanks purchases by Japan can spell Axis death. It is a misnomer that Japan is only on the offensive. A good Allied player will attack the Japan player right back - many times with a 1-2-3 punch in different spots on the Asian front. If the Allies are trading INF for ARM, ARM purchases are no longer an economic buy.
-
I still don’t get how attacking India first turn is a good idea. Assuming you get 4 Infantry, 1 fighter, and 1 bomber to attack, vs. 4 Infantyr and 1 fighter (assuming UK transported the Egypt and Syria infantry to India, taking it isn’t guaranteed and you’ll probably have only 1 infantry left. And if the British sub sruvives and moves to India you might very well lose the transport. You will then get swarmed by the US infantry from Sinkiang, the Russian tank from Novosibirsk, and finally if you’ve survived that, the British tank from Persia. Then, you’ll only have 2 infantry in Burma next turn to take it back again. And worst of all, if the US or USSR takes it back, Britain still gets to build 3 tanks on their turn. Plus if they put fighters on Karalia on turn 1, those planes can fly down to defend India. I tried attacking it once and got stomped. Plus, if the allies are very paranoid, Russia can always put a second fighter on India, making it even harder to attack. Now of course, if the Axis get a high enough bid, all bets are off. If you’re going to try this, make sure Germany takes Egypt or Syria on their first turn.
the first turn IC build doesn’t make sense either. As long as your target is India, transports are fine. The IC comes once you need tanks to take Moscow, turn 3 at the earliest.
-
Eric and Laststrike are thinking exactly how I play it, you just can’t spread yourself too thin the first few turns. Going IC crazy on the mainland to build an tank force early on is suicide if you want to maintain what you capture. After building up your forces and slowing spreading the army around like a virus gobbling up countries, you will be in a position to latch onto everything you gain without doing a trade everyround with Allied forces. Once you have a foothold then build an IC and start producing tanks to make your run on Russia, plus as a bonus for waiting you get a free IC in India if the UK player went that route.
-
If you play Japan, you have to use your fleet to control the Pacific. It is a mistake to leave it in Japan when there are 6 IPCs of territory to take with it. Typically, if Japan does not attack Hawaii the 1st turn, a good USA player will take all those surviving ships and go for the Atlantic. This plan rests upon that assumption, and deals with the naval aspects of that scenario. It won’t happen every game, but you can take advantage of the situation when it does.
J1: (assuming no India factory)
- Build 2 tran, 1 sub
- Move Carolines BB and ftr, Philippenes tran w/ 2 inf, to assault Australia. Join w/ ftr, carrier, sub in Australia SZ.
- Leave other BB in Japan to defend fleet from Hawaii forces.
J2:
- Build 6 inf, 1 tran, 1 arm,
- Move Australia fleet to NZ, take over.
- Transport units from Japan and surrounding islands to Manchuria
J3 (assuming American fleet has left for the Atlantic)
- build troops:transports 2:1
- Move entire fleet from Japan to Alaska, transport drop 6 inf, 1 arm.
- Move entire fleet from NZ to Hawaii, transport drop 2 inf
This sets up a threatened attack on America on J4. America will build a stack of troops to defend, but if you work out the odds, 8 inf + 1 arm + 2 ftr + 2 BB will defeat a bare stack of 10 troops better than 50% of the time. This may seem like a low percentage play, but:
1. You gain 6 IPCs from the territories you capture, that’s 2 troops/turn (plus 2 troops your opponents are not getting, total of 4!) This is the main advantage of this plan.
2. It gives the Americans something to worry about, perhaps buying 1 turn for Germany
3. On the (admittedly slim) chance that America defends with 10 or fewer troops, and leaves none in Eastern US, and you get good rolls, it’s an Axis victory once you begin producing troops in Western US.If America defends too well, simply bring your troops back to Asia to go after Russia. You’ve still got the IPC producing territories you need to bolster your Asia offensive. Also, if there is an India factory, or America decides to face Japan in the Pacific, this plan will not work as well.
-
A good A&A player would generally tell you to build 6-7 inf for each arm unit. This helps you protect the armor and ftrs you have on attack and defense. Remember, infantry = fodder, while arm-ftr = 1-2 punch by one player. When G & J apply it to R it hurts. When UK, US & R(inf only, until you see that the inf you have starting turn X outnumber the inf+arm+ftr G will have after his build on turn X[unless UK & US are shipping inf to reinforce your position]) apply it to G it really smarts!
Mobster, sorry, but you lose in Alaska as I build US inf & arm in W US each turn and move it - US2 to W Can - US3 to E Can - US4 to UK, Nor/Fin, W Eur or Alg.
If you hit Mexico my W US force of 6 inf & 1 arm(minimum, likely extra arm & ftr) hits your force.
If you hit Alaska my W Can force of 6 inf & 1 arm(minimum, likely extra arm & ftr) hits your force. Note: If I’m really worried I’ve flown my bmr from UK to join the attack and land in W Can.
Suggested Topics
