Also, these alternate strategies are in direct response to specific opening moves by other nations and were posted as a way to “try something new” that also had the unique component of being so crazy as to be viable :-)
Japan's First Move
-
SUD, what are your thoughts on Low Luck? I just mean do you play it.
Anyway, I’d do Pearl Lite (a lot) in that since you’re guaranteed 2 hits for sure and the US can only get 1-2 hits.
-
Ok SUD, point (nearly taken).
In answer to your questions:- yes
- maybe - i’d have to visualize the scenario better
- yes
- probably not. Â
questions for you:
- what are you doing with the units you are not throwing into Pearl? Â In RR you do not need a capital ship for the coast (even SFE does not require it usually).
- How necessary is it to nail that Pearl fleet? Â I am changing gears here, i realize. Â I do not see much need for the jp sub, nor do i REALLY need those jp bb’s. Â Still does the US ever really get into JP’s face enough even if they are left alone?
-
DM,
On Low Luck….I hate it :) Seriously, it bores me to death. I understand why people like it and why they like it.Â
SUD<----Picturing people hammering the keyboard when they come up short on a full luck game.
But, I find it boring and predictable. I am actually in the camp that thinks at a high level of play it is too limiting, too restrictive, and not at all more skillful…rather less skillful. I hate that you can use 5 Ftrs, Bomber, 1 Inf vs 3 Inf and not risk losing more than the one attacking Inf. I don’t think that makes you more skillful…I think it makes you less skillful because you never have to overcome adversity or unpredictability.
The game is already very static/predictable IMO. Making it more so…is just a snooze fest, IMO. After all this time, I still just like playing the game having fun. I’d rather have a beer and laugh with my opponents when all 5 attacking Ftrs get shot down by AA, then grip the board in some serious death grip complaining about luck and the dice. It is just a game after all. And I picture the serious Low Luckers as serious nerds who take this way too seriously. Just MO so no one should get their knickers in a twist :)
But, whatever floats your boat. And for a change of pace, sure.Â
But it’s not for me. I’d rather hang wallpaper.
SUD
I totally agree. From what I’ve played of it, it is far too predictiblable.
I like dealing with “worst case” scenerios and not knowing the outcome of battles.
I don’t like the idea of “guarenteed” hits, it definitely takes something away.
That being said, I will play it if someone insists or for a change of pace, and I know certain players swear by it so I play it if I play someone who only plays LL.
-
What I do as Japan has of course to do with what the Russian and British players did. If both Russia attacked Manchuria AND the UK attacked Kwangtung, then Japan is definitely disadvantaged at first. I have seen this strategy before. I have heard it called “the crippling of Japan”. In this case I attack Manchuria back with the trn, 2 inf, the ftr and the bomber from Japan (chances are Russia only took it with 2 or 3 units). Note that if UK attacked Kwangtung then India is either free or it only has 1 ftr defending it. If there is 1 ftr, I attack with the trn and 2 inf from the Phillipines and the ftr from Burma. If the ftr is not in India, then I use only the two inf from the Phillipines. Then I attack Kwangtung with 1-2 inf from Burma and the ftr from the Phillipines (note that this ftr can reach a battle on the mainland if Kwangtung was taken) and possibly the ftr from Burma.
That leaves the BB and the ftr from the Caroline Is. and the BB from Japan and the sub from the Soloman Is. the attack Pearl, with suitable results. I move the AC to the sea of Japan and land the ftr (I lose it last in the Pearl battle) on it to protect trns in the Japan SZ.
If the UK and Russia did not attack (or if you are playing RR), there are more Japanese land units for taking things like China and SFE.
Oh, ya. I build 2 trn and 3 inf, so 4 inf and 1 tank can be transported to manchuria right away on the next turn.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
-
Note that, using this strategy against the opening UK and Russian attacks, that Japan collects its full IPC’s + 3 for India at the end of the turn.
-
Note that, using this strategy against the opening UK and Russian attacks, that Japan collects its full IPC’s + 3 for India at the end of the turn.
which is not nearly enough IMO.
-
India is either free or it only has 1 ftr defending it. If there is 1 ftr, I attack with the trn and 2 inf from the Phillipines and the ftr from Burma. If the ftr is not in India, then I use only the two inf from the Phillipines. Then I attack Kwangtung with 1-2 inf from Burma and the ftr from the Phillipines (note that this ftr can reach a battle on the mainland if Kwangtung was taken) and possibly the ftr from Burma.
A problem with this is that the Jap transport is left unprotected. An allied bomber or fighter will easily destroy this - and Japan cannot afford to lose transports early. Even if the transport survives, it is out of position to send further troops to the Asia mainland, costing the Axis valuable time (which they do not have).
-
So what would you guys recommend if Japan is attacked by both Russia and the UK like this?
Just so you know, I play with bidding, and if I’m Japan I usually place at least a couple of infantry on the mainland, to make such attacks less feasible.
-
Well, this is a no-bid answer, and excludes the “Kwangbang” aspect (just tested again while checking out another series of moves).
Here was the set-up:
Russia went “all in” against Manchuria: Russia Fig and all Yakut and SEA forces. Russia took Manchuria with 2 INF, a tank, and fig flown back to Yakut (to team up with Evenk INF moved to Yakut).
UK sent Transport to Australia, Fighter from India went to Manchuria to strengthen defense.Japan response:
Build 2 trans and 3 INF
Send sub after UK transport (sank transport, odds strongly favor this outcome)
ALL other Japan navy to Sea of Japan; carrying 2 INF from Phillipines.
Land 4 INF in Manchuria with 2 BB’s, Carrier based fighter and Phillipine fighter (could land on Carrier)
And this would differ if Kwangbang executed…
Sent Kwangtung INF, plus all but one Burma INF, Japan fighter, Burma Fighter, and Bomber against China.End result of battles:
China taken with 2 INF remaining
Manchuria re-taken with 3 INF remaining
Burma defended with 1 INF, 2 figs, and 1 bomber.
Japan fleet consisted of 4 transports, 2 battleships, 1 carrier, 2 fighters. (sub off western Australia)
Japan will be able to land 6 INF (4 from Japan, 1 from Wake, 1 from Okinawa) and 1 tank on mainland (or elsewhere…) in J2.Total available allied forces in Asia east of Russia:
2 INF and 1 Fig in Yakut
2 INF in Sinkiang
2 INF in India.
And other than airforce, no ability to replenish troops in southern Asia, except at cost of Russian forces taken away from German front AND from direct Japan strike coming via Yakut (a good trade strategically for Axis if Russia does pull forces to southern Asia)Doing this left US free to be “annoying” in Pacific. US fleet combined and headed to Solomons (which it took without losses). Fleet consists of 1 sub, 1 transport, 1 Battleship, 1 carrier, 2 fighters. US will be “island hoping” in south pacific for a few rounds.
This of course is the negative to not killing part of the US fleet at Pearl in J1.
The advantage though is a STRONG Japan presence on the continent, and defended trannies against anything the Allies can get there. The extra naval support (those twin BB’s) and bringing the Philipine tranny north instead of south to Australia (as I normally do) meant that Russia will not likely re-take Manchuria in R2, and the Yakut force can be destroyed in J2 with 3 INF backed up by airforce. SEA gets an amphib with a tank, and 6 INF land in Manchuria. Russia will have to put at least SOME thought into defense in R2, R3 at the latest, unless they want to lose all territory east of Russia to Japan.
The “maurading” US fleet can be set up to be handled starting in J2. It is only “dangerous” so long as that BB always hits and the 2 INF remain alive. But to shorten it’s life, Japan sends the heavy Navy after it in J2, engaging it in J3, or causing it to retreat if US does not want to engage. At most, Japan will lose 4 IPC’s on islands (most likely only 2) before that fleet either strays too close to continental fighters, or until Japan’s 2 Battleships, carrier, 2 figs and sub engage it (a 1, 2 sneak, 2 3’s, and 2 4 against a 1, 3, 3 4’s. Once tranny is dead (i.e. after the first round), Japan retreats, heading back to protect the tranny’s; leaving a useless US navy in the South Pacific; the remaining US ships (a Battle, Carrier and AT MOST 2 fighters) represent minimal threat on offense against Japan’s capital ships on defense. Only that tranny is a real risk to Japan.
IF US starts to build more tranny’s in the Pacific, first say thank you to the Gods that they are not heading for Germany, then position your navy (and AF) to take them out when they approach.
Meanwhile, keep shuttling troops into Asia, building initially a mixture of INF and Armor to fill existing tranny’s, then buying more tranny’s (and filling each extra as you buy it) eventually giving Japan a tranny fleet of at least 6 or 7 by end of J3.
You can also float an “empty” tranny south into the islands (perhaps with Battleship escort now that their support shots are of no use along Asian coast) to grab some stranded island INF units to re-take islands lost to the US, or Australia/New Zealand, or maybe even head into the Indian Ocean to help in middle east or Africa.
-
Thank you for your thorough response.
-
Thank you for your thorough response.
No problem!
Would not have been worth posting unless it showed all the available info, including the initial negatives of the strategy.
Suggested Topics
